Eyes for lies blog

If you have a spelling test with 100 words and spell 38 correct, your accuracy percentage is 38%. You have failed. You don’t take 60 words away that you didn’t even bother to spell and discredit them and only use 40 words and thus your 38 correct now gives you an A.

That makes no sense.
So, why does she do this?

It’s like Silvia Brown who I discussed in a previous post. This con-artist (let’s call it what it is)  credits herself with a very high accuracy rate for her “physic visions”, but where is this proof?

She provides no details about the true number of cases she has read or which ones were confirmed to have come true. 

There are however several sites dedicated to discrediting her…Not just random percentages or   assumptions. But facts. Transcripts from predictions made on talk shows for cases that have since been solved or closed.

FACTS. She said this missing child was dead. Child was found alive. Not once, not twice, but multiple cases. Where she is proven wrong.

In fact, I have yet to find one credible prediction that was proved to have come true. And I have looked.

Yet she is still in business.

Has a website still boasting her credibility, even charging a few hundred dollars for a reading. People must still be that gullible because she is clearly still in business. This always amazes me. With the internet and television, there are so many things available for people to do the research. Yet so many still just accept things at face value.

WHY?

Well, it appears to me that the writer of “EYES FOR LIES” blog is doing the same. She is claiming she is a “human lie detector” and markets her services as such. She makes money on this.

Being that I love Statement Analysis, I naturally initially found her site intriguing.

I usually would watch the show she reviewed or learn more about the case before reading her views. Many times I agreed with her. Yet would not call myself a “lie detector” but the more I read her blog, I started to find cases that I just flat out did not agree with her. Now this is not a matter of who is right, but some of these cases, she said they were being truthful, when in fact we later found out that they lied. Yet she didn’t pick it up?

I will provide examples later.

But let’s talk more about her statistics.

She posts on her website that she “accurately identified the truth or deceit in 37 out of 39 people” and states that this was tracked from “October 2004 to May 2012”.

Now this is only a handful of the cases she read. And in her defense, so many cases never get solved, I can see how she is unable to include these cases al in the “39 people”.

Ok, so if you see the the screen shot below. You can confirm that this was 2013 when I obtained this screen shot since the dates at the bottom clearly show “Eyes for Lies Copyright  2004-2013”. Once 2014 hits, this will be updated to show 2004-2014. So for now, this is what we are working with.

*****************

Now let’s also look at the exact cases she personally selects to validate this. I again have a screen shot showing the copyright dates. So we can validate this screen shot was done in 2013.

*****************

Now the first thing that comes to mind is how do we know?  Unless you have followed and made screen shots with dates of every single case she had posted on over that 7 year time and followed up on the cases….. Well, you can’t state this is accurate.

So, how do we know? And let’s be real, it’s easy to make changes your own blog. To add, remove or alter after the fact…..so that it benefits your point. And her site does not allow a quick review of all the cases she posted on during those times like some blogs do where you can see them all at a glance. In this case, you have to manually click “older posts” every couple of cases. Considering she also has posts about trips, jobs, and “expressions of the day” this could take quite some time. Time most of us do not have.

But what I did was take a few cases that she did write about that she used to validate her accuracy.

What I found really does nothing to validate her “lie detection” abilities at all.

Now before I get into these cases, I think we need to be clear about 3 things.

1.     Just because someone is “convicted” for a crime, does mean they are guilty

2.     Just because someone is found “not guilty” does not mean they are in fact innocent

3.     Conviction or acquittal does not prove they did or did not lie

So with that said, let’s proceed to some of the cases.  

Let’s first look at Amanda Knox.

She writes several posts about her during the time frame she includes in her accuracy tracking.

Now based on most of the articles I have read on this case (and I read a lot) it is safe to state that it appears that many doubt her innocence. And the simple fact that the woman can not seem to formulate a clear thought about that night speaks volumes. I promise you, if I was being charged with murder, I am going to tell you everything that happened….if I am innocent. She has never been able to do this. Now again, this does not prove she did or did not lie or if she had anything to do with the murder….

But just says that thousands of people across the world believe she has lied. So to use this case to back up to your abilities is really nothing impressive. I thought she was lying from day one. But I am not claiming that I am a “human lie detector”.

And let’s be clear, we still do this day do not know the truth about that night. So how does she use this case to validate that this as, (and I am quoting her own site here) “dishonesty that was caught to date before the truth was known”. When was the truth discovered?  In fact, if you are basing the truth just on conviction, she was later acquitted.  Yes the case is being reviewed again, but Amanda still technically today is acquitted. We still, we do not know the truth. Not technically. We may have theories and ideas. But the truth is still now known.

Now let’s look at another fairly well known case. Drew Peterson.

This is again; a man that most feel is guilty. So hardly anything to really boast about.

And while he was convicted, he has stood by his “innocence”. So, conviction, like I said above, does not prove he lied. So we are again left with what truth is really now know? The truth has not been proved yet again.

Who else do we have? Adam Baker. Adam has not been charged or convicted of anything? I feel he lied and was involved in his daughter’s death. But again, we do not have the truth. We have speculation and theories. But the truth has not been discovered.

Anna Ayala is also on her list. Now, what I found interesting here is that she was not stating she felt Anna was lying herself (as she states she has had a hard time finding any good footage of her speaking) but based her decision on Anna’s son AND…. the fact that the family has a history of lawsuits.  Being that Anna was claiming she found a finger in her bowl of chili (how unlikely is this really) and had a history of lawsuits I think it’s a safe bet that this woman was lying.

So technically she was accurate here however unimpressive as it is, I will give it to her.

She also claimed to have noted deception in Britney Spears stating that she knew her marriage was over during an interview. Well, despite her later filing for divorce, unless she has stated she lied to the reporter, again, I am not sure how this backs her up.

And she was right about Travis Forbes.

So I do not have time to look at the details in each case. But so far the few I have reviewed, 2 were accurate, but 3 were cases that the truth is still not known.

So as time permits I will review more of her cases….. But I think it’s safe to say she needs to evaluate her “accuracy” rating and using cases, that while there was a conviction or acquittal, does not prove she was right.