what really happened?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/08/mexico.us.shooting/index.html?hpt=T2

The comments are very interesting. Seems a lot of people do not beleive her. Is this true? I don't know. We certainly lack sufficient information to make a definitive call one way or the other. The story seems highly illogical though illogical things can and do happen. Why pursue someone in three boats, shoot one, then leave? I am curious to see how this plays out.

Possible scenarios include:
1] She is telling the truth.
2] She is telling part of the truth. Strangers did kill him but she ommited details that may be unflattering to her or her husband. Did the men in the boat know the victim? Did they mistake him for someone else? Was there a more involved altercation between the parties prior to the shooting?
3] She is involved and is captalizing on fear of immigrants and has fabricated a story in an isolated area that absent a body will be nearly impossible to prove / disprove.

Thoughts?

how would she have killed him? whatever she used, there was blood on her life jacket.... so, did she shoot him? where had she been keeping the gun? (maybe i don't get what the personal watercraft is like, or what she'd be wearing. maybe you could secret a gun.)

her words about it being over if they get the body back ring strange to me. who talks like that when they've just lost someone to murder?? just getting the body gives closure?

Her assertion that she just wanted the body back was very strange. Though.... I am reluctant to read too much into that beucase what is a "normal" response when some you care about is murdered. Maybe she feels like no one beleives her and having the body would change that. The body could be important to her for religious reasons. Maybe being able to give him a "proper burial" has spiritual meaning to her.

that they did not kill her is very,very suspicious to me.
also,they lived in Mexico.Maybe they met those boats for a specific reason at that very spot.They were familiar with that lake and they knew it was dangerous.I don't think she killed him but I think there's more to the story than what she's telling ?

Next let’s take a look at creating sounds… Yep, you guessed it. Looking to the right ear is a strong indication your test subject is creating a sound.
There aren’t any strong examples that can be used in this context, only that you should be aware of it happening.
You could try asking your friend to image a really loud noise, the loudest noise they could ever imagine, and watch their eyes move.





Please note that what you have read may not be 100% accurate and that people vary immensely. This can be used as a guide only, to help you with your investigations.

Just because someone looks to the right does not mean they are lying or making something up. They may be a nervous person, easily distracted, seen something to their right, whatever the case may be. So be careful if you are going to accuse anyone of telling fibs!

taken from http://www.memorymentor.com/eye_movements.htm
Unfortunately the picture did not cut and paste. Feel free to follow the link if you are interested. Watch the video again. When she is asked about the camera she looks straight ahead no eye movement. When she is asked about the polygraph she looks to her right.

...."the eyes for lies" blog is usually pretty spot on to me...
she does not believe the story at all
http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2010/10/tiffany-hartley-on-greta.html

It will probably turn out that Tiffany's story isn't true, but I sure don't see it from the account in that blog. (Eyes for Lies)

When her story varies, it's that she doesn't have a "big picture." When she tells events in the same way, she's got a "script."

The "bingo" cracks me up. Why not "... to see if I could get him back on my jet ski..." as in "get him back to our shore"? How about just "get him on the back of my jet ski" and she didn't include all the detailed thought/words?

Shoulder shrug signifying doubt, even though she was there? I'd think bewilderment might be expressed the same way. Not knowing why can be felt as not knowing what.

Shakes her head yes--deceptive; shakes her head no--lying. Some expert....

There's even more that I question, but that's indicative of how I read that. It's like so-called "profilers." What a bunch of hooey.

Tapu does not put much faith in profilers?

I do. Profiling is certainly not an exact science. It cannot be the ONLY technique to solve a crime.. but I think it is an effective tool. I consider it like an experienced detective but instead of a single individual it is the collective experience of many experienced detectives that seek to find patterns in the behavior of people who commit certain types of crimes. Though perhaps not technically profiling I have worked with some amazing investigators over the years that resolve situations quickly simply because they have been doing it long enough that they largely know what to except. Just my

It is possible that this will go down as a Natalie Holloway or Amy Bradley case and no one will ever find out what happened but I think that is unlikley. I think her story will start to unwravel more in the comming weeks. I've been wrong before.

I wouldn't dispute that there are informed, insightful ideas and opinions. Of course law enforcement and other educated and experienced crime investigators often succeed using their methods of deduction.

It's the John Douglas "FBI Profilers" group that gets so much media exposure through their own books and accounts of their "successes" that I disdain. Academic studies of their predictions and the outcomes show that they're all over the place when it comes to the characteristics of perpetrators caught and convicted. Even the original "mad bomber" profile, supposedly correct down to implausible details, has been refuted by the original documents that recorded the events. The colorful detail "he'll be wearing a double-breasted suit" has been disproven.

Worse, those guys in the FBI group don't even acknowledge that there have been scientific studies of their cases and that their findings have been dispelled. They run on ego and lucky guesses.

So... ha ha... yeah, I guess tapu does not put much faith in "profilers."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/11/texas.missing.american.seach/index.html?hpt=T2

And the latest article answers ... really no questions at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/12/texas.falcon.lake.head/index.html?iref=NS1

Now the case gets really strange.