Posts Tagged ‘ABC’

Tiffany Hartley’s Body Language, Facial and Vocal Tells-Do They Reveal Deception?

Thursday, October 14th, 2010

TIFFANY’S STORY HITS A NERVE

With the illegal immigration issues and anti-Mexican sentiment  that is prevalent  in so many  US border communities, the news story of Tiffany Hartwell,  who alleges her husband was shot in the head by some Mexican pirates on Falcon Lake,  seems to have  hit a nerve.

It  generates the fear that if you go into Mexico you may not come out alive. In fact Texas Governor Richard  Perry has even rallied behind the incident.  Jane Velez Mitchell even went so far as calling the woman a “hero.”

But in my view I see nothing heroic about this woman. In fact what I see are many signals of deception in her body language and communication patterns that I  find disturbing.

While  there  been reports of Mexican pirates in the past, those  who had  any encounters  were all unharmed, as the intention of the pirates  were all about robbery, not shooting for sport.

SIGNALS OF DECEPTION

The shoulder shrugs, lip licking, like um and ums, monotone,  verbal inconsistencies in her story and choice of words make me question what really happened to her husband.

In her  911 call, she is asked if she is sure her husband has been shot, She said “yes in his head” .But she doesn’t go on to elaborate about him- the alleged victim. She doesn’t say that  he was bleeding or incapacitated, which would happen if someone was in the head. Instead, she provides herself with an excuse or an alibi for his non survival and for her actions  by saying she is too weak to pull his body unto her Jet Ski. She was forced to abandon him there.

When something tragic happens to someone, you focus  on the person, not on yourself and what you did in the incident, unless you are perhaps involved in the incident.

Also how did she abandon him? Did she abandon him as he was frantically paddling in the water? Did he go underwater and drown? If a person is shot in the head as she said, especially with an assault weapon, brain damage would likely occur and the person may become unconscious and sink to the bottom of the lake.

DISTURBING INITIAL  ABC INTERVIEW

When I saw the initial ABC interview of Tiffany Hartley it left me with a very  negative feeling and here is why.

The ABC interviewer says  to Tiffany that one of the reasons Mexican authorities aren’t helping her is because they don’t believe her- that they didn’t find a body or a jet ski and don’t even think there is a body.

Then she looks away and says that she can understand it from their point of  view  and has to put herself in their point of view to see how they could think that . WHAT???? There is no point of view if someone you love has been shot.

The fact that she stuck out her tongue and did some lip licking as she said this is a signal of deception in my view.Her monotone voice as she said this was also disturbing.Then there is a HUGE signal of deception.

She looks down and shakes her head as she says It’s not only to immediately contradict herelf and say It is  true He is over there ( as she licks her lips while looking down) and I know the pirates or whoever did this (shakes her head NO) did this have him.

Wait a minute! How does she know the   pirates have him if   she abandoned him in the lake as she said she did because  was too small to get him on her jet ski? Also her saying  whoever did this may possibly reveal that someone else did this. Was that someone whoever did this -Tiffany?

Now here is where it really gets suspicious body language wise, voice and speech  pattern wise. Oftentimes and overly  defensive tone or righteous indignation indicate deception. This  was evident as she leans her body back and in a defensive tone says I would never think about hurting my husband said in a monotone as we suddenly see her  jaw move in a chewing motion as though she is causally chewing gum ! When you see this sudden type  of jaw movement it is often a signal of deception.

Then she asks  the rhetoric question “Why would I do this? as she leans back shrugs her shoulder and dies off in volume at the end of the sentence. This is a clear signal of deception. Oftentimes when one asks a question like this in a defensive tone, it usually indicates deception.

CONTRADICTIONS ON THE EARLY SHOW

A week  after Tiffany called 911 and said she abandoned her husband because  he was too heavy for her to get up on her jet skis he now says I do believe they have him and they are hiding him WHAT?????  How would she know this if she allegedly abandoned him in the lake as she initially said  she did.

When asked about damage to the jet skis, she reports on the show that  there were no bullets on her jet ski. This was  too much information and often indicates deception.

Besides the defensive tone, the like um’s peppered throughout her speech, monotone devoid of emotion, faux tears and lip licking  were  major  giveaways throughout the interview that did not instill confidence as to whether or not she was telling the truth.

LOVING HER INSTANT FAME

Tiffany is supposed to be talking about the alleged tragedy to that occurred to Fox and Friends but manages tell Gretchen Carlson that her show was  her husbands favorite show and how he watched it every morning. That is rather inappropriate considering the circumstances.She immediately became star struck.

MORE SIGNALS OF DECEPTION AT PRESSER

Now we really see Tiffany all spruced up at her press conference. She clearly seemed to be enjoying all of her new-found attention. As  she defensively  says I know what I  saw, we see her tell-tale tongue protrusion.

Then she says that people don’t know how it feels to see a barrel of a gun  pointed at you.WHAT??? This is the first time we heard about a barrel of a gun pointed at her. How could she be so close to seeing  a barrel of a gun – an assault weapon as she first described without being shot herself. Didn’t she say that her husband was on  his  jet ski when he was shot in the head- in the back of the head?

As she says this you see  her looking down and you see a shoulder shrug which is indicative of deception.

How could he see a barrel of a gun if the gun was pointed at her husbands back of his head?  And speaking of head, why did she point to the front  of her own head in one of the many  interviews she gave when describing where her husband was shot.

Why didn’t she point to the back of her own head instead of pointing to the front? Could it be that her husband was shot  in the front of his head and not the back as she initially reported? Could it be that she was possibly the shooter and not the alleged pirates or teenagers or whomever has him?

Then as she says she is there to honor her husband, we see her leak out an interesting signal of deception. She shakes he head NO in the negative while she says this. Is she really there to honor  her husband orto honor her own 15 more minutes of fame?

EYE WITNESS?????

I also don’t  buy into the fact that there was an alleged eye witness who has now come forward with the  claim he saw the man’s panicked wife as she fled to the American side of the lake. He doesn’t say that he saw  the man who was allegedly shot.He doesn’t say that he saw exactly what happened. And how close was he to her in order to see her teaars and sobbing?

He said “ The way I saw her come around it looked like something terribly wrong happened. I mean, she was jittery, frantic. … She was crying, sobbing.”

Why was she crying an sobbing? Was she crying and sobbing because she hd just killed her husband and life as she knew it was now over?   The fact that the witness spoke in shadow and with voice alteration to avoid identification because he said he feared for his life is also disturbing to me.

SHE “MAY” TAKE A POLYGRAPH!

If someone has nothing to hide they will not only insist on taking a polygraph. they will even offer up blood or hair samples. So the fact that she uses the word “may” and is hesitant is cause for concern. There are  so many inconsistencies in her story that a  polygraph test  test could validate.

But we  don’t need a polygraph test to confirm that something doesn’t seem  right here. www. drlillianglass.com

: .

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Communication Patterns, Criminal, body language | 3 Comments »

Anita Van der Sloot’s Body Language Shows Anger at Joran and Shame He Is Her Son But Continues To Make Excuses For Him As She Cuts Him Out of Her Life

Saturday, June 26th, 2010

WAS THE STORY ABOUT  THE CONTENTS OF JORAN’S NOTE HE LEFT FOR HER TRUE?

While Joran may have left his mother Anita  a note that he was leaving for Peru, perhaps what he allegedly said  in that note may  be wishful thinking on the part of Anita van der Sloot.

She gives a seemingly embellished story when she says “Joran left me a note.” As she says.  this she brushes off her leg it looks like she is brushing something off. This is usually a signal of deception.

She then  looks down and licks her lips indicating  two other  signals  deception as she recites  that the note says “ Mommy I love you but I, I (repetition of the word I which is another signal of deception )  don’t wanna go to the Netherlands. She then looks way which is yet anothersignal of deception.

She then says, using  a strong voice which does ring true “ I am invited to gamble  in Peru and  I can make money there. But then her voice wanes as she goes on with something that doesn’t make much sense as she adds that Joran’s note says  and  I wanna stay there far  away as no body knows me there. I wanna think I what I wanna do with my life?”

Right after she says this she cocks her head as though she is questioning what he has just said- another signal of deception. I seriously doubt Joran wrote those exact words “I wanna stay there far away nobody knows me there. That doesn’t sound like something someone would write in a note as does I wanna think what to do with my life.

Those are very serious decisions- to stay in Peru and to go away and decide what to do with his life. Why would he write that in a little note instead of  discussing these important life changing decisions verbally with is mother. Also her stating that Joran was there to stay in Peru as opposed to other Latin American countries does not ring true either. He went there for a Poker tournament, not to stay there and build a life. He also  went to Columbia and Chile and was on his way to Argentina.So I don’t buy  it that he was going to  to build a life in Peru where no one knew him. It doesn’t make sense, especially since he is not all that fluent in Spanish.

The fact that he wrote it instead of communicating it   to her verbally shows what a strained relationship they must have had. Also since her interview  was done for Dutch TV and since she said she trusts them so much, why didn’t she produce that note that Joran wrote in order to show everyone exactly what he wrote?

She then  looks down and purses her lips and shrugs her shoulders- all three  all signals of deception as  her body language and facial expression do not match her feelings she is attempting to express. Then she makes a loud” tsking” or smacking sound with her tongue, followed by silence.

She says I was angry. She knits her brow together and juts her jaw forward indicating that she was indeed angry with Joran.

She says ” I was ready for Joran to eh   follow a path where they could help him dealing with his eh  (looks away) em his gambling addiction and if there was a personality disorder which could be very good possible.” She she looks down and blinks a lot as she says this.

Her body language tells make me wonder if she really did send him tot he Netherlands and if  he was planning to go there ,  or if this is all Anita’s  spin to not make Joran look like  a monster.

If you are going to a clinic for a gambling addiction, you mention only  that and don’t add in his  personality disorder, unless  you know one exists. There is no doubt that Anita did know that Joran had some type of psychological problem as he was apparently seeing a therapist in his teen years. Apparently he was sent to a therapist by his parents. According to an interview  which Joran gave to the Aruban police when he was a teen, given after Natalie’s was found missing, Joran admitted he had been sent to a psychiatrist for stealing 50 euros  from his father and for his violence towards his brother.

While Jorn has told many lies in his past, I believe that his telling about seeing a psychiatrist was one of the few times that he was telling the truth.

ANITA LAUGHS WHEN SHE SAYS IT COULDN’T BE JORAN WHO KILLED STEFANY

After Anita recounts that  she found out Stefany was murdered and says that it could not have been Joran,  her facial expression is not what one would expect. She smiles as you see above.

At first she recites what she heard  in a very low and labored tone. As she speaks she  turns her whole body and face away as literally to not face this disaster she is revealing.


She says “ I heard  was a girl found n the Tac hotel in the room of Joran. Her  Inflection goes up as she says em murdered grually em with a  knife , blood everywhere etc. (why would someone say etc.?) They would say etc as a  means of detachment. Anita was clearly trying to detach herself from the horror  of the incident as she  further visualized what he son did to  poor Stefany. Knowing this was too much for her to bear emotionally. The fact that Anita spoke in a  monotone also conformed her emotional detachment.

As Anita says the words there was blood everywhere,she looks away and turns her head to face way from the interviewer. It is as though she is unable to face this horrific visual scene as she has a serious and devastated look on her face as you can see above.

But  then what she does seems rather odd. She begins to smile as she says “And I thought no no this cannot be. No way.Her smile is a not a happy smile but rather a nervous smile. It is a that lasts five seconds.  It may also be a  smile of relief that Joran was finally  caught for  all of his past and present his misdeeds. She then shrugs her shoulders.

We know that a shoulder shrug is often associated wih a person not telling the truth. When Anita  said the words” No way” referring to the fact that there was no way Joran could have committed this brutal act, she was not telling the truth. In her mind,she may have  very well known that Joran was capable of doing such a horrific thing based on his past violence and personality disorder which she referred to earlier in the interview.

She then says she says I was I was was completely shut ” while  clasping  her hands together as if  and then  brushing  her palms   as though she was symbolically brushing Joran off and eliminating  from her life.

Then she crosses her chest with her   with her arms  over lapping one another as if to protect herself. She then  describes how she was  completely shut down emotionally .

Then she pushes her hands out as if she is literally pushing Joran  away from her.

As she describes her phone call with Joran when he was calling her from the taxi during his escape into Chile, her body language appears to be  in synch with her emotional state. Here we see Anita making very frantic  gestures with her hands as she relates how she implored her son to   turn himself in and go to police after she described how he was crying to her.

Then Anita changes her tune and says that she thought it was all a set up because it was exactly five years to the day “that Natalie death happened and now this with Stefany  Flores  happened.” The fact that she mentioned the two girl by  name indicates that she has  respect for them as she  realized the gravity of the situation and her son’s involvement  .  As Anita mentions  Stefany’s name, she turns away as to symbolically turn away from Joran and what he did.  Her speaking in a very matter of fact  unemotional tone shows that she hasn’t fully come to terms with everything from an emotional standpoint.

ANITA SHOWS COMPASSION AND SHAME

Anita showed compassion when she said she immediately thought of the parents. Then she added that she  too identified as she lost a son. She then said she hoped  Joran can speak to the parents of  Stefany Flores and in a normal way tell them what happened.

But as she says this, there is a  tinge of anger in her tone as she  knows there will be no normal way for Joran speak to her parents .  So she says “And I apologize  for them that he is my son. ” She looks down in embarrassment as she makes this statement, indicting body language-wise that she is   truly embarrassed that Joran was her son.

But then  she attempts to modify what she said  by revealing “  He’s, not a monster.” She says this with a   questioning  look as her inflection goes up as if asking a question, perhaps wondering if Joran really is a monster.

In trying to erase this thought from her mind, she  further tries to mollify her shame and embarrassment of Joran by explaining that “ he can be  very gentle,” Then she she rolls  her head from side to side and shrugs  her shoulders as she continues to offer up further excuses fro Joran’s egregious acts by saying “  it could be that he  has a bipolar em personality.”
She is slightly teary  eyed  as she says this yet she is angry as indicated by her pursed lips and jaw jutted forward.

She then leans away and places  her hands in front of herself ,   interlocking her  fingers like a closed gate. In doing so she is    indicating that there is no way she will ever change the words  she has said “  I will not visit Joran  in Peru. I don’t have any feeling that it  can add up to anything. I want to keep distance .I think it will bring emotions up that I am not ready for. “

I think that Anita is wise to stay away from Joran as who knows what would happen to her if they were alone together in his cell in Peru. Based on his psychological reports Joran does not value the female role and has disrespect for women, Thus, there is no doubt that he disrespects his mother. Based on how violent his killing was of Stefany and what he probably did to Natalie, he harbors  a lot of rage towards women including   his mother. Therefore, her own life may be in jeopardy if she is face to face with her son.

She tries to justly her actions  of refusing to see her son by saying she is not a police officer, she is a  a mom.  What she is saying is that she wants the police  officers to handle him because as a mom she is helpless. She  goes  on to say of he is involved, then he needs to be punished by the police.

ANITA GOES BACK TO BLAMING JORAN’S PROBLEMS ON HIS BEING  CHASED FIVE YEARS

Anita definitely has mercurial feelings whne it comes to Joran. On the one hand she sees what Joran has done and wants hiom punished fro his actions.. But on the other breath she continues to make excuses  for Joraan by  saying that “he was chased five years;”

She ratonalizes that this is what caused this  as she blame “people stared at him everywhere he went. “

Maybe if Joran would have come clean and not toyed with the Holloway family, people would not have  have stared at him. Maybe if he would have completed his studies or gone on to  a respectable profession instead of being engaged in the trafficking of prostitutes in Thailand people wouldn’t have stared at him. Maybe if he would have dedicated his time and energies to a more worthwhile and charitable cause instead of playing poker, people wouldn’ t have stared at him.  Perhaps if he got the psychological help he needed, he would have been better able to cope if anyone did happen to stare at him. In reality, how could people avoid staring at someone like Joran who was a striking looking at 6 foot 3 inches tall.

Anita continued on in defending Joran by saying ,”They bothered him and there as no place he was safe.”

NOW ANITA GOES BACK TO BLAMING JORAN

We see Anita’s thought yo yoing  as she says ” I belive in karma. If you do things you shouldn’t do a lot of shit happens to you.” It was interesting how Anita used such a crude word when she knew she was being televised. Perhaps that was the only words she could use to describe her son’s predicament.

Ti use Anita’s word,  a lot of shit happened to Anita as well as Joran. It happened to her because she didn’t handle her out of control son with enough tough love. She made  too many excuses for him like  she is doing now.

But then she goes backtracks as she blames  Joran for not listening to his parents. But his parents needed to have set down some firm laws so their teenage son at the time was not in casinos gambling.

Anita then says ” He didn’t listen to me . and then hesitates and finally continues with “  this last time .” I have no doubt that Joran didn’t listen to Anita anytime.  In making such a  statement Anita is trying to defend herself, She does so by adding “  I tried to do my best I don’t think I could have done more.. “  Of course she could have done more  early on in Joran’s teen years. But she is right that she could not have done more now . It is too late.

One of the most disturbing aspects of  Anita’s interview was that she was making excuses for not  talking to Beth Twitty and blaming the fact that she was being shielded  by the media.  That is an excuse  because if Anita wanted to get to Beth she could have reached out to her somehow during these five years.As Anita says this she  looks down and shrugs her shoulder. This body language gesture indicates that  what Anita is saying about not being able to get to Beth is not true.

What is absolutely true based on her  angry and distanced  body language is that there is no longer any relationship between Anita and her son Joran. www.drlillianglass.com

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Criminal, body language | No Comments »

Michael Jackson’s Bodyguards Body Language Shows Signals of Discomfort Discussing Michael’s Love Life as They ” Set the Record Straight” For Their Own Personal Gain

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

 TRUSTED BODYGUARDS?

I am very troubled by three ex body guards  Bill Whitfield, Mike Garcia ,and  Javon Beard, whom Michael Jackson  entrusted with his most intimate secrets, now  revealing  very personal information about Michael and his children  after his death.  Based on all that we know about  Michael’s desire for privacy and protection for his children, here is no question that Michael would have been 100 per cent  against what these bodyguards are doing .

orThey openly admit they plan to write a book which they plan to call “In Defense of the King.” So they are apparently out there now fishing for a publisher in their attempt to cash in big time on Michael’s death if their book is sold.  Based on how they came across body language –wise  and what they said“setting the record straight” in  speaking out on Michael’s behalf, it seems to me that it is  merely a ploy for them to fill their pockets and cash in on Michaels death.

THEY ARE NOT  TELLING US ANYTHING WE DON’T ALREADY KNOW FROM MEDIA ACCOUNTS

They are not really telling us anything we don’t already know. We know a lot of the information they have divulged, like how polite and smart Michael’s kids are  based on media accounts and by the accounts of those who have interacted with the children. 

They admit that they only worked with Michael for 2 years. So there are things which may or may not have taken place prior to those 2 years which they are not privy. Therefore, they may not know everything they are claim to know about Michael. 

THEY ARE TELLING US  IS THAT THEY ARE UNPROFESSIONAL AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED

Who are these “bodyguards” to set the record straight about Michael?  Who made them Michael’s spokespeople. I am sure that Michael would be livid if he knew they were doing this. These men were paid employees who needed to keep their mouths shut about Michael and his family whether he was alive or not.

 I have no doubt with Michael’s intelligence and savvy, not to mention his  having been burned by others in the past, that he would have made them sign some type of confidentiality  agreement. I hope that those in charge of his estate will come across those agreements and stop these three in their tracks. 

TROLLING FOR A PUBLISHER

The only reason they came forth  now and put their faces in front of the media is in my view to troll for a book deal. They even have  a title picked out for the book before it is written. They want to see how much interest there is. That is they spilled the beans now.

But obviously they aren’t  that savvy or as clever as they think.  They told way too much already.  No publisher in their right mind would give them a book deal and expect the book to fly off the shelves. Why? Because  they already revealed everything  already in Ashley Banfield’s  very thorough ABC  interview where she left no stone unturned. left no she unturned. So who needs a a book? We know all they have to say.  You get your face in front of the media AFTER you have a book deal and have written it in order to PROMOTE it.

So if they did get  a book deal, wrote the book or had someone write it for them,  and then  appeared on TV again to promote it would be OLD news. No one is interested  in what they have to say anymore.

 WERE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH?

Although I found each of them despicable for getting on front of the media and sharing Michael’s personal  life which he guarded so privately, to the point of wearing masks and disguises and having his kids do likewise,  I wanted to  scrutinize any  “tells” which may have given away their true  motives . I also wanted to see if there were any” tells” of deception or nervousness or discomfort.

It was interesting to watch all three of them sitting together as they were interviewed. It was also interesting to watch them separately  in order to see if one or more showed signals of deception .

For the most part, they were in all synch. Whether it was rehearsed or not, they were all on the same page.  For the most part it seemed like they were telling the truth.  But I think they told way too much of the truth. They had no business revealing the details about the kids and their behavior, especially the description of Princes behavior when he tried to manipulate cookies out of them.  This was not setting the record straight. This was setting their sights straight on to a potential book deal to make money for themselves.

RED FLAG TELLS OF DISCOMFORT   ABOUT MICHEAL’S PEDOPHILIA ALLEGATIONS  AND REALTIONSHIPS WITH WOMEN

There was one area where they were clearly uncomfortable and it showed in their body language. It was when they were discussing  their views on Michael’s alleged pedophilia. Their body language showed that they  over compensated by giving way to much information. They were asked if Michael was a pedophile. Then bodyguard  Bill Whitfield  says that he’s a man and he knows that Michael is interested in women just like he is. You can see his facial expression change as he looks away and his forehead get’s furrowed. He also pulls his head back and there is a shoulder shrug . This indicates signals of discomfort.

 Mike Garcia also shows signals of discomfort when the “pedophilia” question comes up. He shakes his leg indicating “I want to get out of here.”

The three gave way too much information as Bill speaks about curtains in the limousine being  drawn in the back of a limo, and sucking noises being made.  To say this was inappropriate on their behalf is an understatement. The question was about pedophilia.  All they needed to say was they didn’t witness any acts of pedophilia or that it was their opinion that Michael wasn’t a pedophile. But their going off on a tangent and talking about Michael’s  girlfriends was a red flag.  One had nothing to do with another. Their over compensated answers in giving too detailed information made it seem like they  both “doth protest too much”.

I am not saying that they think Michael is or isn’t  a pedophile. I am saying that they showed signals of discomfort when this topic was brought up by Ashley Banfield.

Other than that, there body languages showed that they were open and they seemed forthright. When they answered, most of the time all three of them appeared to answer in unison. With the exception of the time they discussed Michael’s  intimate life, where they showed major signals of discomfort, they   sat  confidently with their legs apart in an open position with upright straight posture with their  heads  erect.

MICHAEL VENTED TO THEM  PRIVATELY NOT PUBLICALLY

Bill Whitfield said that there were times that Michael vented and “vented loudly” I cringed. Michael  may have vented loudly but he did it  privately. Michael  projected an image of a person who was always kind with a loving soul.  He never showed anger in public. He worked hard at getting that image across. So to hear them say Michael “vented loudly” is to take away from the public image that Michael worked so hard to cultivate. If he “vented loudly” he did it only for their ears- not the public’s  As Bill  said this I automatically cringed.

 While these men  are not doctors or health or legal professionals who have to abide by the  law to keep secrets ( unless they signed a non -disclosure clause before working with Michael) technically they don’t have to keep quiet about Michael. But  ethically I believe  it is a different matter. I believe that they should keep things about Michael confidential in his death just as they did in his life.

Michael trusted them with his life and his kids and as Bill Whitfield said, they became more than security.  Javon Beard interjected that they were more like personal assistants and Mike Garcia said that it was not their job but since there was no entourage it was just them, they hand to handle everything.

 IF MICHAEL HATED HIS VEGAS HOME BECAUSE OF PAPPS, WHY DIDN’T THE BODYGUARDS DO ANYTHING TO STOP THE PAPPS AND FANS ?

I think that it was way too much information to reveal that Michael hated his Vegas mansion because of all the papps. If these men  were HIS  bodyguards as they claim to be,  why didn’t they keeps the papps AND FANS away? Why didn’ they do whatever it took to make sure Michael had the best security so that the papps and fans wouldn’t  invade his home ? That statement alone turned me off.

THEY ALL BELIEVE MICHAEL AS AN AWSOME DAD

When asked if he was a good dad, they all replied in unison awesome!  Their body language  showed that all three of them strongly believed that Michael was a great dad.  Mike Garcia shared how the children would constantly say I Love you daddy and that they were like the four buddies as  Bill Whitfield appropriately shook his head yes and smiled a huge genuine smile.

They also spoke of how protective he was of his kids seeing his bad press as he turned over newspapers so the kids wouldn’t see negative headlines about him. It showed that Michael’s first and foremost concern was for  his kids.

They also nooded and spoke in unison as to Michael’s being successful at shielding his kids from the media.  Each one’s  body language were in synch as they appered to be  in agreement that Michael didn’t think what he did was weird. In fact Javon shook his head “no”   as confirmation while Bill Whitfield explained this. 

REVEALING  INAPPROPRIATE  INFORMATION ABOUT THE KIDS

They spoke of the kids with pride as there were genuine smiles as they said that the kids were regular kids and how they  were very polite and well mannered, something we have all herd before. All three of them shook their heads  “yes”  in agreement as this information was relayed.

But then when they showed a note Paris wrote to Bill thanking him for getting cat food, I though that was a bit too invasive. Even if it was a polite gesture, I don’t know how Paris would feel about having her personal handwritten note to Bill  exposed for the world to see. It was for Bill not for the world to see with her little heart over the “I” as she signed her name Paris.  I didn’t think that was necessary to do.

Then Javon also revealed WAY too much information as he shared how Prince would say “ Daddy wants you to get some cookies for us, indicating their mischief  in tricking the bodyguards into getting them cookies. I dounnt these kids or Michael would want that information exposed.  This is exactly what Michael hated. He didn’t want anything personal about these kids revealed and there is no doubt Michael would deem  this story about Prince as being WAY too personal in nature.  

Then he added that he asked Michael (the client) if he wanted him to go get some cookies for the kids and in a loud voice, Javon  mimicked what Michael would say “ Prince get up here!” “Why are you telling them that?”

While it showed that Michael set limits and boundaries for the kids, it was still way too much information  about the kids that we don’t need to know. Unless the kids decide to speak about their experiences with their dad or write a book, no one has any right discussing them.

If these kids were paraded around like some others have been by their parents  and publically expoised and exploited as  many have mentioned. Then perhaps they would be fair game, but not in this situation. Michael went out of his way to  shield his kids from the press at all times.  Therefore,  I believe these body guards have broken the confidence of their client by sharing intimate personal stories about the kids like this one which may not put Prince in the best light.

FAST FOOD RUNS WITH MICHAEL

They also shared how Michael liked to go through the drive through at fast food places  with the kids. I found that unacceptable as they shared what Michael said  as he ordered the meal which was” If these people only know who ordered the meal.”

Both Bill and Javon said it in unison so there was no doubt based on other body language signals as well that this  was definitely  a true incident. But maybe Michel didn’t want the word to know that he fed his kids fast foods or that he even ate fast foods. Maybe he wouldn’t want his private comment shared.  Maybe it was his one personal moment to feel like a normal person and order fast food without anyone knowing. Maybe that was his personal little thrill . They had no right to share this personal moment with anyone in my view..

What the bodyguards said was true as they once again spoke in unison that people “never knew that Michael Jackson was the one ordering  the food.  In fact Javan imitated Michael ‘s high voice as said “ One cheeseburger please” While there is no doubt they were all telling the truth, there is even less doubt that Michael would have wanted this information revealed to the world.

 PEDOPHILE RUMORS

Something really strange happened body language wise when Ashley Banfield asked them if they thought Michael  was a pedophile?  They were clearly uncomfortable with this question as each one of them squirmed and had various body language tells which illustrated their discomfort with this area of questioning.

Why did they show such signals of discomfort? Only they know. Michael  may or may not have been a pedophile and Michael was the only one who could attest to those allegations. Just for the record a person can still like women and have girlfriends and  still be a pedophile. Look at how many married men with families who are even pillars of their community. Look at all the married pedophiles with their own families who have been caught on NBC’s “To Catch a Predator.”

They very well may  or may not have seen any evidence that Michael was a pedophile during the two years they spent with him.  I am not saying that Michael is or isn’t a pedophile but these body guards may not know for sure. Their discomfort was very visible in their body language as this was the first time throughout the entire interview that they weren’t as confident verbally, vocally or body language-wise.

As examples of what I am saying, bodyguard Mike Garcia pursed his lip and moved around more, Bill Whitfield looked down, and Javon Beard  had a tight  ingenuine smile, unlike his previous smiles throughout the interview.  

MICHAEL’S NOISES  IN BACK OF THE LIMO WITH A WOMAN

How dare them discuss that there was a curtain in the backseat of the limo and that Michael was with a girlfriend back there.  Rule number one of any limo driver, let alone any body guard is shut up about your client’s intimate goings on.

 As this story was revealed there was an observed shoulder shrug. That is a signal of deception. There was also a nervous smile- another signal of deception as well as discomfort, In their attempt to set the record straight, they gave way too much information that I am sure Michael would have objected to. If he wanted anyone to know he was with a woman at any time, he would have shown her publically. If the curtain was allegedly drawn he obviously didn’t want anyone to know who he was with or what they were doing.

Then Ashley being the great interviewer that she is remarked “it’s like  you were chaperoning two teenagers back there making out ”. She was simply probing to see where they would go with it.  They shook their heads and agreed as it was a way out for them. Then the unconscionable happened. Bill  revealed that he heard loud sucking noises as his eyebrows were raised. This made me suspicious as to whether this incident really happened? Since  Michael was as  shy and paranoid about anyone knowing his business in a limo I am sure that he would have a limo with a sound proof glass partition. I have never seen a limo with only a mere curtain and I have ridden in many limos in my lifetime.  

MICHAEL’S BANAIDS WERE NOT HIS  DISGUISE AS A”BURN VICTIM”

When  Bill said that Michael’s bandages were worn for him to be disguised as a “burn victim” I knew for sure that they were full of it. Even Bill knew that he was full of it  as his body language showed his head jerking back and eyebrows being furrowed and looking away.

Michael wore many bandages around his face because of the numerous office surgeries and Botox and Restalyn treatments he had at Dr. Klein’s office, his dermatologist that often left bruising on various areas of his face. The band aids were to cover up the bruises. If Bill was around Michael as much as he said he was or escorted him to the doctor in the limo, he would have seen the brusing and  the redness and swelling.

They were not worn as a disguise for him to appear as a burn patient. If that was the case Michael would have wrapped his whole head in gauze or worn a silicone  burn mask.  

Then when Ashley proved and asked why they didn’t ask why Michael was “disguised like that,” Javon said “How can you tell him that?” He’s coming down with the kids, how can I say,  What the hell have you got on sir?”

Javon’s statement as well has his referring to Michael as “sir”  shows that he respected the boundaries with Michael as his “client” which he referred to earlier. This means he respected his “client” to not interfere, judge or question what he was doing. In my view he needed to show that same respect now and not reveal anything about his “client” no that he is no longer with us.

In my view one has to treat someone who has died with the same respect they treated them when they were alive. If they kept their confidences when the person was alive they need to do the same thing now that the person is dead and no longer here to defend themselves or to sue for defamation.  

TALKING ABOUT MICHAEL’S DRUG PROBLEM

When Bill revealed that it appeareard that Michael was on something indicating that  Michael was on drugs I thought this was out of line.  If this was the case and he was his body guard, why didn’t he do something to help his “client?” After all he was supposed to protect his client at all costs. If Michael was drugged up as Bill said, how could Michael function properly as the  “good father? ”If his client was so out of it, why didn’t he try to get his “client” some help? Why didn’t he encourage his client to get help?

The answer is obvious. He needed the job and the money  didn’t want to make waves so he turned a blind eye. The operative word here is “money.” To me this is what this is all about. It sickens me that anyone who was entrusted to caring about a person and protecting them  in life, would now peddle that same person’s dead flesh in hopes of scoring a  book deal and making money off of them. http://www.drlillianglass.com

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Newsmakers | 3 Comments »