From all of us at Women in Crime Ink, wishing you a safe, prosperous, and happy New Year! Welcome 2011!

Read More

Good Versus Evil: An Inside Look at 'Wanted Undead or Alive'

by Andrea Campbell

Many historical stories about vampires, ghosts and other phenomenon are based in whole, or in part, on real happenings. People have always been superstitious and afraid of many things such as apparitions or no matter. My guests today, Janice Gable Bashman and Jonathan Maberry, are here to talk about these concepts and more.

AC: Welcome. Today we are talking about the book Wanted Undead or Alive. Can you give Women in Crime Ink readers a short synopsis?

JGB: Wanted Undead or Alive deals with the struggle of good versus evil in film, comics, pop culture, world myth, literature, and the real world. Everything from vampire slayers to paranormal investigators to real life/legendary heroes to FBI serial-killer profilers.

AC: How is the book organized?

JM: Each chapter tackles a different theme. Serial Killers, Vampires, Ghost Hunting, and so on. We also have interviews with experts ranging from Stan Lee to real FBI profilers.

JGB: And, the book is fully illustrated by top horror, comics and fantasy artists.

AC: Tales are passed down through history, but how does one separate fact from fiction?

JM: That’s often impossible. History is filtered through personal viewpoints and often unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts. Mix that with the supernatural, paranormal, celestial, and the unknown, and you get a grab-bag of accounts that often rely on belief.

That said, the purpose of the book isn’t to prove anything. It’s an exploration of the themes of good and evil (and their variations, like good and bad, our side and their side, etc.) and how those concepts have manifested in politics, religion, art, literature, folklore, pop culture, comics, and our modern world.

AC: In the book you say that evil is intention. In fact, in criminal law there is the act, but it is not a crime without intent. Why is there that distinction?

JM: Many crimes are committed accidentally or during a moment of confusion, such as an argument, a riot, a natural catastrophe. Intent is key because that speaks as to why a crime was committed. In the book we use an example: driving a car up onto a lawn and running over a puppy is a violation of several laws. Does that make it a crime? Deliberately chasing the puppy up onto the lawn with the intention of running it over is definitely a crime. Or is it? Cold facts are not big picture enough to make that determination. What if the puppy is rabid and is about to bite a toddler in a sandbox? Would using the car to save the child still be a felony? Or does it then become an heroic act? Intent matters.

AC: Wanted Undead or Alive is actually a complete guide of many different evil entities. Can you speak to that?

JM: Evil, badness and corruption exist in all aspects of human culture. Not just the extremes of evil, but its shades and variations. For example, if a vampire believes himself to be of a different species from human, then can human values of good and evil apply? We don’t apply them to, say, sharks or tigers and yet they prey on humans. Or, if a person rises from the grave as a vampire –their first night as a vampire, in fact—are they innately evil? If a vampire hunter tries to stake them that first night, before the vampire has even had a chance to hunt for human blood, why is the hunter not the evil felon and the vampire the innocent victim? Evil is all about shades of gray.

AC: Why is it that readers are drawn to evil do you think?

JGB: Readers are drawn to evil because it speaks to us, to that deep dark part of humans that we all, at least most of us, would prefer to keep buried and well hidden. Evil fascinates us because it scares us. We search for a way to conquer it and gain control of it, to make sense of our lives.

AC: What is a monomyth?

JM: It’s a concept coined by James Joyce but explored in great depth by Joseph Campbell in his ‘The Hero with a Thousand Faces’. In short, if you look at myths from around the world there are some story lines that seem to crop up everywhere. Similarities abound, even in cultures that can’t easily be historically connected, such as the Navajo and the Greeks.

AC: Two part question here: Vampires have an incredibly long history. What new facts did you unearth from the past and how did you possibly choose what to tell?

JM: We focused on the vampire hunter, and on the myths and misconceptions associated with folkloric vampirism. For example, we discuss the various ways in which a person can become a vampire. Being bitten by a vampire is the least common way, by the way. A common way is to be born with a caul, an amniotic membrane covering the face, that in some cases indicates the presence of evil within the newborn. Vampire species created through this means include the Wume of Togo, the Nachtzehrer of Germany, the Strigoi of Romania, the Upier and Ohyn of Poland; while in other cultures it’s a sign of great positive spiritual power.

AC: So what’s up with ghost hunters?

JGB: In many cultures, ghosts are feared; others embrace spirits. The fascination with paranormal phenomenon is nothing new. In fact, inventor Thomas Edison (1847-1931) was convinced it was possible to design a device to communicate with ghosts, although he never created one. Modern technology has given ghost hunters the means to seek and obtain scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts and other phenomenon. Today’s ghost hunters use photographs, video footage, sound recordings and a variety of other equipment to scientifically collect evidence of ghost activity.

AC: What did you learn about behavioral profilers?

JGB: What we see on TV or in the movies or read about behavioral profilers is only part of the picture. The word profiler refers to an aspect of the job and not a job title. Profilers attempt to determine the type of person who committed a crime based on patterns and similarities among killings. In addition to trying to catch serial killers, behavioral profilers work on all types of crime, help law enforcement establish probable cause and obtain search warrants, and help prosecutors with jury selection and ways to cross examine the killer.

AC: Who did you interview and how did you approach such an undertaking? Did working together help and how did that come about, your co-authorship?

JM: We worked separately for most of the project. We divided the topics and generally conducted the research on our own until we had a draft of a chapter. Then we swapped drafts so that the other person could review it, make any changes, additions or deletions. Then we each did a pass on the full book so that it had a uniform voice.

JGN: Over the course of the book we spoke with Stan Lee, Mike Mignola (creator of Hellboy), horror actresses Amber Benson, Amy Lynn Best, Christa Cambpell and Monique DuPree; authors Charlaine Harris (True Blood), Rachel Caine, Shiloh Walker, Russell Atwood, James Moore, Charles Ardai; filmmakers John Carpenter, Lloyd Kaufman, Mike Watt; and so many others.

AC: What will you be doing for promotion?

JGB: We’ve already had a bunch of book signings and have more in the works. We’ve been interviewed or reviewed on numerous blogs and written guest posts for others. We also have a strong presence on Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Word of mouth is one of the strongest and most effective means of marketing, and we’re using these platforms to help spread the word.

***

Jonathan Maberry is a New York Times bestseller, multiple Bram Stoker Award-winner, and a writer for Marvel Comics. He has written a number of award-winning nonfiction books and novels on the paranormal and supernatural, including The Cryptopedia, Vampire Universe, They Bite, Zombie CSU and Patient Zero. His latest novel is Rot & Ruin. Visit Jonathan’s website here.

Janice Gable Bashman has written for The Big Thrill, Novel & Short Story Writer's Market, the Writer, Wild River Review, and many others. Visit Janice’s website here.

Read More

Donna Pendergast opens up for the WCI interview

By Kathryn Casey

Sometimes we take those around us for granted. That shouldn't be, but it's human nature. Then we step back, take a look and say, you know, I wonder if readers understand how truly amazing some of these women are. Donna Pendergast is one of those women. She's one of our stalwarts, here with us from day one. And she's been repeatedly described as one of the top prosecutors in the nation. I recently asked her to sit down for an interview. I'm sure you'll agree that Donna is one incredible woman.

KC: Why are you a prosecutor? What in your past led you to law school and the Michigan Attorney General’s office?

DP: I'm a prosecutor because I want to make a difference. When I look back on my life, I want to know that I helped people. It's a difficult and stressful job, but I feel like it's my calling. My father was a police officer in Detroit for 39 years and that is probably where I get my law enforcement bent. When I went to law school I realized quickly that I was comfortable and did well in the litigation-type classes and exercises. I decided that I wanted to spend my career in a courtroom. There is no area of law where you get as much courtroom time as criminal law. I sure didn't want to represent the other side. As I have been quoted as saying, "I understand that everyone is entitled to a defense. I just don't want to be the one providing it."

KC: You’re well known for prosecuting murder cases, which is understandable since you’ve taken on more than 100 such cases. You’ve never lost one, right?

DP: I have prosecuted hundreds of cases but my specialty is homicide cases. I have prosecuted 100 homicide cases through verdict and won 98 of those cases. The two that I lost--there really was very little evidence. In one case, the main witness recanted and we were left with an identification of the murderer by another witness who said he saw his face "in a dream." The judge dismissed the case at the preliminary examination. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ordered it to trial. The other case involved a voice ID made by a mentally challenged person--tough cases.

KC: Tell us about the first murder case you tackled?

DP: Edna Hollis killed her husband while he was sleeping in bed. We never really did learn her reason for doing so. I have my suspicions but they are based on speculation so I won't mention them. Edna fled the scene and was apprehended after a car accident. In a stranger than life twist, a passerby to the accident scene stole the murder weapon from the scene. It was never recovered.

KC: You’ve been called Michigan’s best prosecutor. What case taught you the most about your profession?

DP: That's a flattering characterization, but I don't know about the best-prosecutor thing. There are a lot of topnotch prosecutors out there. I just try to do my very best in every case. When you hold people's lives in your hands, you have to be able to look in the mirror after a trial and know that no matter what the result was, you did your very best. I honestly can say that I have never given less than 100%. But, trust me, it takes its toll.

KC: What was your most important lesson?

DP: Very early on I learned never to say to the surviving victims of a homicide case: "I understand how you feel," because as a homicide victim's family member once told me,"You could never understand how I feel." Instead I learned to say "I know that I could never understand how you feel, but I've been through this with other families before, and this is what I have seen in the past..." I've also learned that there is true evil in the world. How else do you explain something as diabolical as a serial murderer like Coral Eugene Watts? As I often tell juries, "There is no explanation for pure evil--just recognition of what it is."

KC: Looking back, you’ve handled so many sensational murder cases. In the Lady in the Lake case, the murder of Florence Unger, you had little forensic evidence, only the bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence to work with. Tell us about that case.

DP: The Unger case was a mammoth undertaking. The case was circumstantial, and the medical evidence was very complex. We were also up against a very well funded defense and multiple lawyers on the defense team. Fortunately, I had two great teammates. I'm usually the lone prosecutor in the courtroom, so this was a new experience. My two teammates were brought in specially for the trial. One teammate was my former boss when I was a county Assistant Prosecutor. He was brought onto the team because of his extensive medical malpractice knowledge. My other teammate was a former colleague at the same prosecutors office. My other teammate had been his boss as well. The second teammate had been involved in the child parental-rights termination proceedings against Mr. Unger, and was intimately familiar with the case like I was. In the nearly three years that it took to get the case to trial, he had left the prosecutor's office and gone into private practice. He came on board as a special prosecutor for that case only. It was such a wonderful experience having three very experienced trial lawyers working together for a common goal. When they came on the team we all agreed that I would be the ship's captain. We were all used to being the alpha dog in the courtroom and were not sure how it was going to work. It was a dream experience--we all worked together; there were no egos involved.

KC: Have the shows like CSI influenced juries? Do you have to account for the public’s fascination with forensics?

DP: There is no question that shows like CSI have influenced how juries think. In the Prosecution world, we call it the CSI effect. Jurors see things on TV and expect real life to be the same way. It's not. As prosecutors, we have to work very hard, beginning during jury selection, to educate jurors so that they understand that forensic evidence is not always left at a crime scene. In the case of serial murderer Coral Watts, he killed many many women and never left behind ANY forensic evidence at any of his crime scenes. In fact, as prosecutors we often present what we call negative evidence. Say there are no fingerprints at a crime scene. Often, I will call an expert in just to explain what factors figure in to whether or not fingerprints are left behind and how common it is for there to be no fingerprints at a crime scene or on a weapon, etc. Things like temperature, weather, humidity, the smoothness of the surface and whether or not a person is perspiring all affect whether or not a fingerprint is left behind. That's just one example.

KC: You’re also the prosecutor who kept serial killer Coral Eugene Watts from being released from prison. As I remember it, a paperwork mistake had cleared the way for his release. How anyone could consider releasing a serial killer from prison is beyond my imagination, but it was happening, and there was nothing anyone in the Lone Star State could do to stop it. That’s when you stepped in and prosecuted Watts in Michigan for the 25-year-old murder of Helen Dutcher. The pressure must have been overwhelming, knowing who Watts is, what he’s capable of, and that if you failed, a serial killer would go free. What was that like?

DP: The pressure was enormous. The stakes were so very high, and the case was covered live on national TV. Luckily, we had a judge who admitted similar evidence and testimony so I was able to present evidence of Watts' diabolical pattern of behavior. Thank goodness for an awesome appellate lawyer who wrote the brief and argued the motion to admit similar acts testimony. Being able to present that testimony at trial made a huge impact on the jurors.

KC: Like the Dutcher case, many of your cases are what we’d call cold cases, some decades old. What are the added challenges in these cases?

DP: The Dutcher case was 25 years old when it went to trial. A cold case presents a unique set of challenges. Memories fade and evidence can get lost. When a case is as old as the Dutcher case, oftentimes the witnesses are now deceased. As a prosecutor, you also have the unique challenge of explaining to jurors why the case is being prosecuted years later. As I often tell jurors in a cold case---justice is a concept that doesn't get old.

KC: Another of your sensational cold cases is that of the Duvall brothers, Raymond and Donald, whom you prosecuted for the 1985 murders of two Michigan hunters, cutting up their bodies and feeding them to the pigs. I have to admit that particular case reminded me of the old movie Deliverance. You prosecuted the Duvalls in 2003 and got convictions, resulting in life sentences. Looking back, how do you see the Duvall case? Why wasn’t it prosecuted sooner? How could anyone be that evil?

DP: The Duvall case has often been referred to in the same sentence as the word Deliverance. The Duvall case was like a Michigan legend. Two hunters went up hunting the weekend before Thanksgiving in 1985 and disappeared off the face of the earth. Their bodies and their vehicles were never found. I remember being in law school when the case happened. Every year when hunting season came around there would be stories in the newspaper and the case would be talked about. I, like everyone else, wondered what happened to them. I never dreamed that nearly two decades later I would be the one prosecuting the people who murdered the hunters. The case wasn't prosecuted earlier because everyone was afraid of the Duvall brothers--in fact, terrified of them. A very determined detective from the Michigan State Police found the eyewitness who eventually testified at trial. It took him two years to gain her confidence before she told what she saw. As it turns out, the case was prosecuted just in time. The key eyewitness died a year or so after the trial. There is no understanding of the evil in that case. It's evil, plain and simple.

KC: I know you’ve had a lot of tough cases, but what was the most challenging you’ve ever tackled? Why?

DP: The Mark Unger trial was the most difficult that I have tackled based on the complexity of the evidence and the length of the trial (nine weeks). However, there was a case when I was a Wayne County prosecutor that logistically was nearly as difficult. It was a case with three defendants who each had their own jury. To have three juries going at the same time is extremely difficult. To complicate things further, it was a case without a body, and the officer in charge of the case was arrested the night before the trial started. So, I was in the courtroom alone with no officer in charge to coordinate. That is an experience that I don't want to repeat.

KC: You’ve been portrayed in, I believe, four true crime books. As a crime writer, I’m wondering what that experience is like. If I popped in on your next trial, would you be glad to see me?

DP: When I'm in trial, I don't really notice the media once I launch into my case. A trial is all-consuming. If you start worrying about the media, it's going to affect your performance--and not in a good way. It is a strange experience to see yourself portrayed in print in a book. You ask yourself: "Wow. Do I come across like that?"

KC: I worry that spending so much time writing about terrible crimes affects the way I see those around me. I don’t honestly know if that’s good or bad, but do you have the same concerns? Do your experiences color your worldview?

DP: Seeing the terrible things that I do, you try not to let it affect you, but the truth is, it does. So much senseless violence and sadness and so little reason why. It has affected my worldview to the extent that I realize that evil is a very real thing. I am also a far more cautious person than I used to be. When I was young, I didn't think twice about day-to-day actions like getting out of my car to get gas at night. Now I do things like that only when absolutely necessary, and I'm always looking over my shoulder.

KC: I know there are victims and families living with incredible pain and struggling to get a prosecutor’s attention. They or their loved ones have been victimized, and they want the cases pursued. Can you give them any insight into the best way to approach authorities?

DP: Approach them politely and document what they say. Stay in frequent contact but don't become a pest. Above all, never give up. I have prosecuted three cases nearly 30 years old and many more decades or so old. There is always hope that the critical piece of the puzzle will fall into place.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, thoughts or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Read More

On Land or on Water

by Pat Brown

Women in Crime Ink contributor Dr. Lillian Glass recently wrote a post concerning her belief that Tiffany Hartley, the wife of missing jet skier, David Hartley, has not been telling the truth concerning his disappearance on Falcon Lake on the Texas-Mexico border. Peter Hyatt, a statement analyst, also came out early on with his dissection of Hartley's comments and has said she is being deceptive. Many people have noted something seems wrong with Tiffany's "story," as she calls her version of the event. However, quite a few people, including the Texas authorities, believe she is telling the truth. I won't recount all the details and deceptions here; I want to focus on where I think the event occurred.

I believe she is telling the truth... sort of. She is describing the murder of her husband by drug dealers. She says she did not have any reason to want to kill her husband. I believe her. I just don't believe she is telling the truth about where the event went down. This could be why some of her story rings true and parts of it make no sense. This could also be why certain "facts" change. She may want us to believe her story, so she tries to make it as convincing as possible, fixing things a bit as time goes on without giving up the whole truth. If she is being deceptive, she may be trying to save herself from the inside of a jail cell.

Sometimes when people lie about a tragic crime, which they are guilty of committing or having some sort of involvement in, they change the time it happened or the location of where it happened to eliminate themselves. I think Tiffany may be doing this. I think the murder occurred and Tiffany escaped, but I think the whole thing may have gone down on the shore and not on the lake. I think no boats came after them, just men. Replace the "water" with "land," and "boats" with "men," and see if her story doesn't now seem to make a whole lot more sense.

I had problems with her story. but it all came together for me with Tiffany's recent emphatic statement that her husband's body would be found on land. Why would it be found on land if he were shot on the water? Why wouldn't the cartel just get the heck out of Dodge as soon as they committed the crime? On water, they would be out in the open where they could be seen if they wasted time retrieving his body and trying to trail his jet ski behind their boat or riding off on it. Most bodies are just left where they go down if time is limited to deal with. The only reason Tiffany should be so sure the body is on land is because that is where she saw it last and it makes sense for the killers to then go bury or burn the body, because they have it right there with them in Mexican territory. The jet ski would be right there on their shore, and it makes sense they would then hide it or paint it and sell it.

Tiffany doesn't seem to be very mad at her husband's murderers. She stated on "Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell" that "we just want David back. And maybe they can't provide a body, I don't know. But they can provide something of evidence... And then we'll go away." Really? You will just leave them alone and not seek justice even though they brutally killed your husband and destroyed your life? Tiffany keeps saying she just wants the body back so she can "move on" and they can "move on." She wants them to be able to go back to dealing drugs and murdering people? How generous! I guess as long as she gets proof he is dead, the insurance money will come in and she can "move on," even if only a couple of weeks have gone by. And why would anyone be so naive as to think a drug cartel would give up evidence that could lead to them, especially one that just sent the head of the lead investigator back in a suitcase? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Because they want Tiffany and David's family to have closure? Unlikely.

By the way, Tiffany and David don't look a bit Mexican, so mistaken identity is not a motive. I doubt the cartels would shoot just anyone, just in case, and bring unnecessary attention to themselves.

So, on to where the murder occurred. When they were leaving the "area," men waved at them. This happens when you are being friendly or saying good-bye, not when you are about to go gun down people. Tiffany also recounts having conversations with the killers, over the sounds of the jet skis and boats and gunshots. It sounds more like parties involved are toe to toe, not bouncing around on the water. Sometime in the scenario, David Hartley gets shot in the forehead, according to Tiffany's story, but that she did not know he was shot in the head until she turned over his body, which had been face down in the water (also, she used two fingers and pointed to her forehead on television when describing the shot that killed him). She commented on how the killers got so close to her she found herself looking down the barrel of a gun. All of these descriptions sound like an encounter one might experience during a drug transaction gone bad... on land.

After David gets shot, Tiffany tries to lift him "onto the jet ski," but he is too heavy. If she tried to get him to his feet on land, he would be too heavy as well. She asks him, "What should I do? What should I do?" I think he would tell her to run, and I would guess she would run to her jet ski and take off and not look back until she was far enough away to take a chance on checking to see if they were following her.

Another fascinating statement Tiffany makes is that she would take a bullet for David because he took one for her. How is that? If they were both simply trying to outrun shooters, wouldn't he just have been the unlucky schmuck who got hit? He wouldn't have done anything spectacular, like trying to save Tiffany. But, on land, maybe he did step in front of her to protect her and got shot. And maybe the reason Tiffany got away was that three men were not shooting at her with machine guns, just one man with a handgun whose clip ran out giving her time to flee.

Those three boats were more likely three men. If one takes the whole scenario and moves it from the water to the land, the way it went down starts to add up. Try it.

Read More

No Justice in Oklahoma

by Susan Murphy Milano

For more than a decade, the Oklahoma Medical Justice For The Dead is the tip of the iceberg of what families have endured, going back to the year 2000 and the unsolved murder(s) of their family members. Autopsies are stamped "suicide" as if the medical examiner's office is branding justice for victims as if they were cattle.

One by one, the crime scene photos tell each victim's story. The blood-spattered walls, the entry and exist wounds of bullets, an appliance cord around a neck to burn patterns, and body position upon entry. The Examiner's Office has practiced a brand of cover up and corruption without regard for truth and justice.

Chanda Turner, just 23 years old, was shot to death at her home in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, on July 12, 2000. Her boyfriend claimed she shot herself while he slept through the sound of gunfire and later found her outside on the back steps after she was dead. Crime scene photos depict blood throughout the inside of the home, including on the mattress he claimed he was asleep on. The mattress had been stripped of sheets; no one asked where they went. There were more signs of cleanup in the bedroom, including a bottle of cleaning solution on the floor. The boyfriend had fresh scratches on his arms, and Chanda was covered in bruises. There were signs of a struggle in the living room, including broken furniture.

On January 6, 2004, Sheila Deviney's mobile home (fire photo, right), located about one mile east and one mile south of Maysville, Oklahoma, burned to the ground. Deviney, 30, was murdered. It should be no surprise that Sheila Deviney had been married to an abusive, controlling man. They had a court date about past-due child support scheduled for the next day. According to eye witnesses, her ex-husband was at the home, although, by law, he was not allowed on the premises. He and another friend destroyed evidence and took items from the home. And, as of last week, the medical examiner's office has set a deadline in 2012 regarding the destruction of Sheila's tissue samples. And there is a $50,000 reward being offered by Oklahoma business people in this case.

Tom Horton (left) had been a beloved and respected teacher for twenty five years in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, before he was killed by a shotgun blast in his home on December 10, 2008.

Many family members sounded the alarm of foul play, they pointed out obvious evidence of a homicide to local authorities which fell on deaf ears.

Medical Investigator John Miller, who is not a physician and who also obstructed the performance of an autopsy in Chanda Turner's case, classified the death a suicide. No autopsy was perfomed, despite Tom Horton dying of an unattended, violent death by firearm. The family's repeated requests for an autopsy were denied. Without benefit of an autopsy or other direct scrutiny by any pathologist, Horton’s death remains incorrectly classified as a suicide. The family called attention to physical evidence in other areas of the dwelling corroborating homicide, all of which the ME's Office met with hostility.

Faced with an overwhelming number of inconsistencies and physical evidence, five individuals from Wynnewood, including two of Horton’s sons, two family friends and a former student, began the arduous task of seeking justice in Garvin County, up to and including the petitioning for a grand jury.

Landon Edwards, or "Hopper," (pictured, right) was just 26 years of age when he was found murdered in Guymon on August 30, 2008. The autopsy photos in this case tell a much different story than what the Oklahoma ME's office listed on his death certificate.

At the time, according to family accounts, "[Landons'] girlfriend claimed to have found him upon awaking at 8:38 a.m." Supposedly, Landon hung himself less than 10 feet from where she slept, in a room that had no door between her and the victim. The facts speak for themselves. The victim's position at the scene did not support that of a self-induced death, or suicide.

As you are reading this, I am in Oklahoma, under what many consider a hostile environment. Threats have been implied that I will not leave the state in anything other than a body bag. During my ten days in Oklahoma, I will be visiting crimes scenes with family members, participating in press conferences, legislation and meeting with various officials.

The Roth Show will be taking daily reports live from me as I make appearances in and around Oklahoma. Dr. Laurie Roth and her associates have committed themselves to helping keep me safe while I'm there.

Read More

Is Tiffany Hartley Telling the Truth? Body Language, Voice, Speech Inconsistencies Speak Volumes

by Dr. Lillian Glass

Are U.S. federal and Texas law enforcement authorities paying close attention to Tiffany Hartley, who has gone on a media blitz sharing her story about alleged pirates who shot her husband while riding a jet ski on the Mexican side of Falcon Lake? Are they truly keeping their eyes and ears open, or are they turning a blind eye and deaf ear because the topic of border control is such a political hotbed?

As a body language and communications expert, I can never turn a blind eye when I see so many signals of deception which are consistent in Tiffany’s many interviews.

The lip licking, sudden and extraneous jaw excursions, pleading hand gestures with palms facing upwards, looking down, excessive eye blinking, tilting of the head, pulling her body away, and shoulder shrugs when asked about and discussing key issues are huge red flags to me.

Likewise, I can never turn a deaf ear when I hear so many “uh’s” and “um’s” peppered throughout speech, dying off at the end of sentences when crucial information is being revealed, a monotone voice devoid of emotion, too much detailed and tangential information, righteous indignation, and most crucial of all, too many inconsistencies in a story.

It does not matter how many sheriffs or governors of states bordering the U.S. and Mexico border, or even of her in-laws, believe her. It doesn’t matter how many suspects or persons of interest are rounded up, or how many eyewitnesses come forward and rally behind her. Tiffany Hartley is exhibiting multiple signals of deception, which make her story very questionable, in my view.

One of the first indicators of deception is whether a person is consistent in their story. Tiffany Hartley has not been consistent.

From first describing the shooters to what actually happened with her husband, her story has changed drastically. It changed from the first time she opened her mouth on air, where she was seen looking plain, with her hair in her eyes, to a more pulled together look complete with makeup and her hair pulled back.

The more she appeared on TV the more she appeared to enjoy the attention. At first she was star struck even telling Gretchen Carlson on Fox and Friends that she and her husband watched her show every day. Then she continued to get more and more verbal and more and more inconsistent in keeping her story straight.

From pirates who shot at her and her husband from a distance across the boarder, they suddenly became teenagers. Then they were pirates again, who killed her husband. Then they were people who had her husband’s body. If someone was shot in the head and sustained a head injury, wouldn’t they sink to the bottom of the lake and drown? Why would anyone dive into the lake and retrieve a dead body at the bottom of the lake?

First she said she abandoned her husband, who was shot in the head, because she was too small to get him put on her jet ski. Then she said someone had him. How did she know anyone had him if she abandoned him? First she said they used an assault weapon and later she said she was looking down a barrel of a gun. First she said she was far away and now she says she is up close enough to see a gun barrel.

First, no boat was mentioned, then on Anderson Copper she said that in the one boat near her, “I saw two people but there was a third or fourth person in that boat, I just didn't see them." How does she know there was a third or fourth person in the boat if she didn’t see them? Was she on the boat?

There are other inconsistencies which are equally disturbing. As Tiffany continues to come forward and speak, there is no doubt that the truth will eventually leak out.

When it does, her now supportive in laws will suddenly not be so supportive of her. They will have had more time to process everything she said to the media. Then they will immediately turn on her.

Instead of spending her time visiting media outlet after media outlet, in my view Tiffany needs to spend her time visiting a number of lawyers so she can find the right one for her if and when authorities finally open their eyes and ears and realize that she may not be the right poster girl for border control issues.

Read More