They've done it again! Konami is selling another $1,000 card. Wait, what's that? It isn't $1,000? It's $1,300 this time? It's official. Konami has completely lost their minds. If you haven't heard, Konami just announced their newest product in the Masterpiece series, the Platinum Dark Magician. If that sentence doesn't make any sense to you, let me give you a little background. The Yu-Gi-Oh TCG Masterpiece series debuted in 2021 when Konami decided to sell a Blue Eyes Wide Dragon made of 99% silver for $1,000. For one card. This was big news at the time because Konami had never sold a product at such a high markup, especially not a single card. So this was like crazy. Everyone was freaking out. I made a video about it. It was really bad. I went back and watched it and I was like, I barely said anything for nine straight minutes. I like to think I've improved from those videos two years ago, but I'm doing, I'm doing my best guys, okay? But they sold that product directly to the consumer. They didn't use local stores and use distributors. So they completely cut out all of that and just went straight to the consumer, which was an interesting play. I mean, it just sounds like they wanted more money. And speaking of wanting more money, the Dark Magician has just been announced and is the newest addition to the series. There's only been two in the series. There's not much of a series, you know, two years. There's been two products and by products, I mean two cards. Here's what the actual announcement says about the product on their website. In 2023, a small number of duelists will level up their collection and style with the ultimate wizard in terms of attack and defense. Similar to the Yu-Gi-Oh Trading Card Game Masterpiece series, Platinum Blue Eyes, White Dragon released in 2021. The second release of the Yu-Gi-Oh Trading Card Game Masterpiece series will be a special Silver Dark Magician card. That was a mouthful. This unique, individually numbered, world premiere collectible is limited to 1,000 initial copies in North and Latin America. They said initial last time. We'll talk about that in a second. Made of 99.9% pure silver, burnished to a platinum colored finish and encased in a protective brick of acrylic at 1,300 USD each. These cards are not for everyone. They are certainly not for everyone. Orders will be limited to one per person per household. All sales are final. Once again, this Platinum card is limited to 1,000 initial copies. We said this previously in 2021. We said there's 1,000 initial copies. Oh no, what does that mean? Does that mean they're going to, you know, print more or something like that? They didn't actually do that. I didn't talk about it a lot in my previous video. Trading card game Masterpiece series. That's kind of cool sounding. So it's a series. I don't know what else we're going to get. Probably Dark Magician at some point. But it turns out, you know, there was nothing to really freak out about. At least not yet. I mean, they might do it later. But in that video, I did predict that the Dark Magician would be the next iteration in this series. So I guess I did something right in that video. Pat me on the back. Good job. The most interesting thing about this announcement was not that they had another iteration of this series because obviously a $1,000 card, they're printing money. I mean, it's 99% silver. But guess what? That's not worth $1,000. So they're basically printing an insane amount of profit by selling this because there's no distributors. There's no locals. I'm sure the cost is more significant than a cardboard card, but it is definitely not a thousand or $1,300. They decided $1,000 was not enough pure profit. They needed $1,300 of pure profit. What a weird number. You're already at the even 1,000.  Why do we got add on 30% on top of that? Is this the U.S. government? I'm not sure. I want you to just understand how crazy this price bump is.  How about we just do $300 more? Let's do a little digging on the actual price. The original Masterpiece Blue Eyes was released in June of 2021. Does anybody remember what was happening in June of 2021? COVID boom. Cards were selling for prices that they had literally never sold for before. Here are some examples. Legend of Blue Eyes first edition PSA 10 packs. There were three sales of $1,925, $2,000, and $1,850. In 2023, these same packs have sales of $1,300 and then four sales of $1,000. In 2021, an unlimited Blue Eyes White Dragon, not just unlimited, a 2017 reprint sold for $2,125. An original print unlimited did have a little bit of a fade, so you got to factor that in. Sold for, wait for it, $5,555. Yeah, I said unlimited. Yeah, unlimited, $5,555. Anybody remember those times? COVID was nuts. And now I went back in search for PSA 10 unlimited prices and I was getting 2022 is the best I could get. So just a year later, now it's probably down even more, so keep that in mind. 2022, we had an original print unlimited sell for $1,913. That's an original print. Didn't have any fade to it, but still significantly less there. Then we had a Gymmit SGC, which is a fourth-grading company, which is fairly relevant. They do a lot of actual grading, so they're not like some tiny company. There was a PSA 10 reprint sold for $925. So it's not gonna be PSA premium, but only 900 bucks for the reprint 2017, versus the original 2000 and 2021. Then let's get a little MRD price point, a Mirror Force first-ed PSA 10 sold for $1,700 in 2021. I used this one because I personally sold one for $900 this year, so I know it's down almost 50% in the last two years. These 2021 cards was sold in peak market when the Masterpiece Blue Eyes was released for $1,000. Now in 2023, as we saw, we're in a market that's down about 50%. So obviously there's a little bit of a price difference when it comes to Yu-Gi-Oh cards in 2023, but Konami got confused and said, hey, there's a price difference. Wait, the cards are not the same price as 2021 because they're more now, baby. Yeah, 1,300 bucks. How about that? Sound good, everybody? And everybody in the Konami boardroom's like, yeah, beautiful. That's just what I was thinking. Add more to it. Yeah, perfect. So basically Konami decided to increase a $1,000 MSRP product by 30% in a market down 50%. That's pretty insane. Now it all sounds completely ridiculous, but let's get to the question. Should you buy one? Or me? Or anybody? Should anybody buy one? Now, if I remember correctly, there was some weird stuff going on where there's like 1,000 in the Americas and like Latin America, North America, stuff like that. I think we had 1,000. I remember Europe had a separate release. I think they actually got to buy theirs ahead of time. I remember people trying to get people in Europe to buy one for them so they could like be guaranteed to have one and stuff. They had another 1,000. And I don't remember if there was maybe another 1,000 somewhere like, I don't remember if Asia got any or anything. So there's at least 2,000 copies out there for the platinum blue eyes. I don't know, maybe 3,000. And in 2021, we had concern that it was like, maybe they won't number them and then they could just do that reprint thing where they said it's like the initial copies. But they did end up like putting the numbers on them. I don't remember if we figured out if there's like a European difference. Like in the European one, if you have the one out of 1,000, is it so to say one out of 1,000 like the USA one? I'm not totally sure about that. So anybody can clarify, let me know in the comments. I'm expecting dark magician will be the same. There'll be 1,000 in North America, in Latin America, 1,000 Europe. And then if there was another 1,000, maybe in like Asia or something, then those will exist. And then of course they'll be numbered. Assuming it's the same as blue eyes, but who knows? So if you were to have bought the blue eyes two years ago in 2021, you would have spent 1,000 bucks, which is yeah, that's a lot. But what are they worth today? I checked some sales on eBay and they are actually selling for an average of about $2,000, which hey, 1,000 to 2,000. Guess what that is? That's a double. That's pretty good. About 50% per year, 100% over the last two years. I mean, you're not gonna get those returns on any sort of stock investing and certainly not in my Yu-Gi-Oh investment series. If you guys have seen that, go check it out, shameless plug. I also noticed during the price research that someone hilariously took one of these out of the case and graded it. They got a PSA eight and they actually lost value from the sealed thing. So that didn't go so well. What were you thinking? I don't know. If you're in the comments, let us know. What were you thinking? Now, 100% return is pretty awesome, especially when you compare it to most Yu-Gi-Oh cards that are down 50%. So if you think about that being up 100% versus down 50%, that's a pretty big swing. So Platinum Blue Eyes actually was a pretty decent investment. Nearly every card I own that I've had since 2021 is down like 50%. So if I had bought the Platinum Blue Eyes, which I didn't, I would actually have made money. So why did it make money exactly? Is it because of the 1,000 card limit, the manufactured $1,000 price point or simply because it's a good investment? There's really no way to know for sure. It could be none of those, could be all of those, could be a mixture of some of them. But you know what that means? We should be buying the Dark Magician, right? If we pay 1,300 bucks, we're definitely gonna have 2,600 bucks in 2025. That's what that means, 1,000 or 2,000. That means that if I buy this Dark Magician, it's guaranteed that I'm gonna have $2,600 in two years. Maybe, maybe not. First of all, I've already mentioned the market. That could be a good thing. Maybe if you buy this now and when the market goes crazy, this will go up a lot or maybe we're buying in at a significantly higher price point than we did last time, the 300 plus the, you know, the difference in the actual market. And then we have to consider that Blue Eyes is not the same card as Dark Magician. I gathered some examples of these iconic cards and compared their prices and here are the results. First of all, we have the PSA 10 Dark Magician from DDS, aka the Dark Duel Stories, RIP. Don't bring up when I try to open the Game Boy in the comments. Just pretend like that never happened. This PSA 10 goes for $3,400 approximately. All these are based on sales on eBay, by the way, so just keep that in mind. Then a Blue Eyes, White Dragon, DDS, Gem Mint recently sold at auction for $6,413.34. So that's about $3,000 more than the Dark Magician. Then if we want to visit the iconic Starter Decks, the Dark Magician first edition from Starter Deck, Yugi in PSA 10 goes for about $4,000. While the SDK, the Starter Deck, Kaiba Blue Eyes, White Dragon first edition PSA 10 goes for about $9,000. So that's over double the Dark Magician. And then finally, we have to bring up the LOB first edition versions. I was able to find an eBay sale of $8,000 for the Dark Magician in PSA 10 from LOB, and that's the first edition of course. The Blue Eyes I have not seen a sale recently, but the lowest sale I've heard of in the last two years was $30,000. So if we just go with that conservative 30,000 for the PSA 10, that's a significantly higher amount than the Dark Magician. So best case scenario, Dark Magician goes for about 50% of the Blue Eyes, and worst case, it's only 25 to 30%. So Konami's charging an extra $300 and a market down 50% for a card that usually goes for about 50% of the Blue Eyes. Now this is not every case, obviously, but these are significant versions of the card, and it shows that Dark Magician usually does not carry as much weight as the Blue Eyes White Dragon to most collectors and fans of Yu-Gi-Oh. This is not promising for the Platinum Dark Magician's future, in terms of value at least. And I think if you're buying a $1,300 card, you probably care about the value. I don't wanna hear from any of you guys in the comments who are not buying the card saying, yeah, but it shouldn't matter about the card. It's about the collecting. Look, yeah, yeah, you're right. It is about the collecting. But when you're spending $1,300 on a card, it's definitely about the value. It just is. You're spending $1,300, you don't want it to go down.  You spend $1,300, it goes down to 500, nobody likes that feeling.  But just for fun, and while I can't really know what's gonna happen with this card, and this is in no way financial advice for if you should go out and buy it or not, I'm going to have a little fun in an attempt to predict the card's future, or at least the price of the card. Starting off, everyone obviously has to pay $1,300 for the card. You can't buy it anywhere for less than 1,300 unless somebody buys it from Konami and then resells it for less, which obviously they're not gonna wanna do that, so that might be a while down the road before that's even possible. It may never be possible. Because the market is down, and this is a dark magician and a blue-eyes have already talked about this, I suspect that there's gonna be significantly less interest in this dark magician versus the blue eyes in 2021. Even during the massive hype for the blue eyes in 2021, even someone like myself didn't buy the blue eyes. Like, I am all in on this kind of stuff, like that's right up my alley, collector card, really expensive. You know, it's during the hype when, you know, you could have flipped it for like $2,000, $3,000, like immediately, which we didn't know at the time, so I couldn't like actually bank on that. But I didn't even buy it. So now that there's a lot less people speculating on Yu-Gi-Oh, collecting Yu-Gi-Oh, buying Yu-Gi-Oh, there's just gonna be less people interested in this card. And now there's also a markup. So obviously that's gonna deter some people. But I'm sure that a lot of people who do buy this are gonna instantly post this on eBay for like $5,000. I remember when the blue eyes came out, they were all like $5,000 to $10,000 minimum on eBay because people bought them and instantly listed them. There were so many listings, it just became a rat race lower and lower until eventually they got down, I think $3,000 was around when they started selling, which is triple your money, so that's a pretty good flip. Now, I will say before that happens, I would not recommend buying at any flipped price. I mean, let's say if they buy it for $1,300, flip it for $15,000, sure, that's not a big deal. But if they put it up for $5,000, just don't buy it at $5,000, there's gonna be a better price at some point. They're not gonna stay up at $5,000. I'm not gonna like predict the future or anything, but I am 99% sure it's gonna go lower than $5,000. So just hold your horses, probably should just buy it in the first place. Just buy the $1,300 version if you're thinking about buying it. But because the blue eyes ended up at about like $3,000 and then slowly fell down to $2,000 like we saw recently, which is still double your money, it's not bad. I'm expecting that this card probably doesn't even start selling until it's down to about $2,000 because of the dark magician less interest in all that stuff. I'm guessing that they go for around $1,500 to $2,000. A lot of people will buy these, attempt to post them up for $5,000, they won't get a sale, some will list it for $4,500, they'll list it for $4,000, it'll go all the way down to $3,000, $2,500, $2,000. And eventually some people will just want to move on from it, they'll want to sell it, make their money back and go buy something else. So I'm guessing some will sell for $1,500 to $2,000 and people will move on from it, you'll either get it and the initial $1,300, you'll buy from the flip at about, you know, $1,500 to $2,000 and it'll probably stay around there for the next couple of years. I'm not expecting this to really creep up unless there's some kind of crazy Yu-Gi-Oh boom which could potentially increase the price. But as I've said many times on this channel, I've told many people in DMs, there's no actual way to know what's gonna happen in the Yu-Gi-Oh market or any market in general. So let me know in the comments, what do you think about the platinum dark magician? Will you be buying one? I didn't buy the blue eyes and I'm probably gonna do the same for the dark magician. I wanna know what you guys are gonna do. Shout out to Tom Fosho, Dax or JT Show, Puffins of Doom, Ernesto Deanna, America Doytster, Supreme Sage 21, CJ, Leo Guine 62, another Thai show, Ian Moosa, Junior Barney, Mimic Gecko and Robert F. Thank you guys for supporting the channel and I'll see you guys in the next video. Peace.


Welcome back to Kids Fun Science. My name is Ken and today's experiment is the rollback can. As always, adult supervision is required. What you need for this experiment is a can with a lid, a screwdriver, a 9-volt battery, rubber band, tape, and two paper clips. I'm going to do this experiment backwards where I'm going to show you the experiment first and then show you the procedures on how to put it together. The reason the can moves backwards is the transition of the potential energy to the kinetic energy. In this case, the can, the kinetic energy is transformed into an easy observable example of elastic potential energy, which is then transformed back into kinetic energy. The way this works is when I roll the can forward, I give the can kinetic energy. Gravity exerts a lot of force on the heavy battery pulling it down and causing the resist the twisty motion of the rubber band. As the can rolls forward, a stubborn heavy battery doesn't turn with it, so the rubber band gets all wound up. This converts the can kinetic energy into potential energy, and once all the kinetic energy is used up, the rubber band can untwist, pushing against the battery and rolling the can back towards you. Potential energy turns back into the kinetic energy. Pretty awesome, as I thought it just had a great back spin. Now you've seen this awesome experiment, now I'm going to show you how to put it together. I use a Folger's Coffee Cup, 11 ounces, 320 grams. You're going to make sure it's empty, then you're going to poke a hole through the bottom of the can. I just use a regular screwdriver. You can use anything, just be careful not to stab yourself, and then take the top part of the coffee can or any kind of can and poke a hole through that. Now you take your 9-volt battery and put a rubber band on the top and place it over with tape. I'm using Blue's Paters tape. Then take your rubber band and bring it to the top of the other side and bring the tape down so it's secure. You can use any kind of tape, as long as it's flipped right over and the battery looks like this at the end result. Now you're going to pick this battery and rubber band and place it towards the bottom of the can. The rubber band is kind of like lining over the hole. Now you're going to take your screwdriver and push that rubber band all the way through the bottom part of the hole, and then you're going to grab that rubber band from the other side and pull that out. Once you do that, pull the screwdriver out. Now you're going to take one of your paper clips and you're going to put it between the rubber band right there, just like this, and then pull down on the rubber band, the inside of the can, so it's secure on the bottom there. Now that's the easy part. Here comes the hard part.  Put the lid completely on while you're still holding the rubber band, and then you're going to take your second paper clip and do the same exact as the bottom, put it through the rubber band, and now it's secure. Now you have your rolling cap, so now all you have to do is be able to roll it. So that's how you put it together. I hope you enjoyed this video. Remember to click thumbs up below and to subscribe. Thanks for watching.


Today we're gonna talk about Angela Simpson. She committed murder in 2009 and now she's in prison. Greg wants to tell us about the videos we're gonna watch. This is a pretty graphic crime that she committed. In fact Phoenix said it's among the most graphic. So we'll leave that at that and tell you that she's pretty open about having committed this crime. This is effectively a confession. Angela, I've seen previous interviews and I've with the police and one of our colleagues talked to you once upon a time. You're very upfront. Pretty much. About talking about this killing. Right. You murdered this man. Yes. You tortured him. Of course. There is no ambiguity and there is nothing you want to... In court today you said you're not here to pretend to be remorseful. Of course not. Why would I do that? Are you remorseful? Not at all. Why? Why would I be? Well, why did this man deserve to die? You claimed he was a snitch. What? What proof do you have of that? He told me he was a snitch. He told you? On many occasions. But that really doesn't matter. Why did you guys want to kill me? Phoenix wanted to kill me. What's the difference? Everybody has a reason to kill. My reason might not be good to you, but your reason wasn't good to me. So... All right, Chase, what do you got? Yeah, so when people tell you how to spot a psychopath, there are some rules of thumb. And keep in mind you need more than just one thumb to spot a psychopath. One more than one indicator. But one thing you see here right away is a skillful, a very skillful redirection of the interviewer's concept. She immediately finds a similar situation that he can identify with and then leverages it against him. And this is what I call confrontational common ground. And that's exactly what she's using here in this situation. Her breathing rate is almost around 50 here, which is really high. It's into the chest and not her abdomen. We tend to breathe through our chest when we're stressed, our abdomen when we're relaxed, when we're sleeping. So we see that here. Her hair is done. She's very obviously taken time to ensure that a certain image is displayed. The behavior here is just like the image. In that, I think she's needing some sort of reaction to the image that she's creating. And she likely, I think, feels some kind of reward when she can cause reactions in other people. And this personality type typically lived in their younger years, feeling insignificant, and they feel the more that they can affect the world around them, the more they can affect people as adults, the more they feel personally rewarded. Scott, what do you got? All right, you're right. Really low blink rate at this point. And she's breathing pretty fast and it's really shallow. And but this stays almost throughout the whole interview. So it's really odd. I thought it was really interesting to see that. I think the lip licking is part of her baseline, because we see a lot of body name window who meows in his mouth all the time. And it's part of his baseline. And her cadence is normal for her baseline. She doesn't really lope anywhere. They sound like prepared answers, but I think it's prepared attitude she has. So no matter what she's going to answer, she's going to answer with that attitude at this point. When the interviewer says there's no ambiguity, we see an expression of frustration and anger. It's another blend in this situation. So I think that bothers her something. I don't know why that would bother, but that's the expression she's given. That's the impression I'm getting. And then the interviewer says, you said you're not here to pretend to be remorseful. She says, of course not. Why would I do that? We see nostril flares.  There's anger at that point. And then he says, are you remorseful? And she says, and she smiles and says, why would I be? Again, I think this is a prepped attitude that she's replying with, because it's a little bit aggressive and it's flipping at the same time. And I agree, Chase, people say I can spot a psychopath.  Sometimes it takes up to a year to diagnose one. But we can see things they'll tell us that the person might be by their behaviors and the way they act. And they'll go down the hair checklist if they're not aware of the hair checklist and doing those things on purpose or aware of that personality type and trying to mimic it. We're starting to get, I think, a foundation for her personality type here, though. By the way, she's acting in the things she's saying with the attitude she's given us at that point. There are not much thinking before she answers. I don't see a whole lot. In some spots, we'll get to, there's construction. You can see her putting the answer together, how she's going to do it. But these just seem to come right out. Not that they're prepped, but I think it's her attitude has been prepped. And then the interviewer says, what proof do you have of that? The guy being a snitch. That's where she chaps and redirects at that point. She goes off into a whole other thing about her being killed. And it's just she completely takes control of that and takes over here. And he follows her, goes right with her at that point. Not that he would have any reason not to. I mean, he's not looking for deception because she's already in trouble. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I think this is more interesting than it first appears. So stick with us on this because it gets really interesting. Totally agree, Scott, low blink rate at the start. Though what we do see is the blinks of recognition. This is what honesty looks like. She's being very honest with these answers up front. Did you do it? You know, absolutely, I did. I don't think she uses the word absolutely. But there's these blinks of recognition there that punctuate the honesty of that first part of the story. Totally got it here. Scott links the lips of baseline. Absolutely. I think we'll see that throughout. It's nothing more than the baseline. What I like most about it, everybody has a reason to kill. Everybody has a reason to kill. So she puts forward this idea that killing is a human trait. Well, that might be true. That could well be true.  And I think we're going to see this idea of the moral code play out. I think throughout this, she's going to try and convince us that she lives by a code. She's trying to kind of going to try and convince us. I think that she's one type of personality when she is another type of personality. I think she's really good at it. I think she's really good. I mean, I think if you if you didn't have some expertise in this, this to be you pretty much take it hook, line and sink up. I could be wrong. Greg, what do you got on this one? Couple things, Mark. I agree with you. She's send watch. You're going to find she is sending a message that has, I don't know who she's sending it for, but she's sending a message with some traits and values and code. We'll start paying attention. I'll point them out through each of these. That's interesting for me. It makes me wonder. Did she have gang involvement and and and and something else? Because there's some clear messaging she's sending that is, if she didn't do it intentionally, she's brilliant at unintentional messaging. She starts off. The other thing I'll talk about here is I say fight or flight a lot and people may say, well, there's it doesn't affect people the way you think it does. Yes, it does. Fight or flight can go all the way from feeling apprehensive that somebody might discover you've done something in a minor fight or flight all the way up to I'm going to come across this table. I think she might be I'm going to come across this table kind of a person. And that's why we're seeing the respiration up. And she's comfortable in that situation. Look, if she was doing that and it was not normal for her, Mark, you always talk about hyperventilation and respiration. She would be already in that situation. So something about her is is jacked up. It's just how she is. She purses her lips for disapproval at one point.    But Scott, when you talk about that no ambiguity, she does something we're going to see a few times that has some meaning. And the only reason is I say that's because when he's talking about her children, when he's talking about a couple of other things, she does that inside the mouth bite. That's an adapter. I don't know why she's doing it. And every one of you watch. Tell me what you see. I will read the comments to look and see if you have this. So paying attention to that and seeing what is going on. I think you you'll pick up on something even I didn't. Then she does that lip compression at why would I be? Maybe she's holding back something there. Maybe she just does it because her style don't know. Then she does the Ramirez moral equivocation.  This is moral restatement. All she's doing is exactly like you just said, Mark, she's doing a moral restatement and she's saying all of us do it. Look, I just do it for a different reason. And I think she's going to tell us what the reason is. That's all I got. And I've seen previous interviews and I'm with the police and I'm one of our colleagues talk to you once upon a time. You're very upfront. Pretty much about talking about this killing. Right. You murdered this man. Yes. You tortured him. Of course. There is no ambiguity and there is nothing you want us. In court today you said you're not here to pretend to be remorseful. Of course not. Why would I do that? Are you remorseful? Not at all. Why? Why would I be? Well, why did this man deserve to die? You claimed he was a snitch. Well, proof do you have of that? He told me he was a snitch. She told you. On many occasions. But that really doesn't matter. Why did you guys want to kill me? Phoenix wanted to kill me. What's the difference? Everybody has a reason to kill. My reason might not be good to you, but your reason wasn't good to me. So. The incident, can you tell me anything about what happened during those three days while you were dead? What do you mean? I don't know. I took him to my house, walked him down the street. I don't know why the media acts like couldn't walk. He walked very well.  And again, your belief is that he was a snitch because he told you. You claimed that other people had been killed in that same part. You had killed other people.  No, I've never killed anyone else. So that was something to talk about. Right. How do you feel about spending the rest of your life in prison? You know, I got a lot of family in prison and I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. I got many sisters in prison. I can't wait to see them.  All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so that breathing rate still is this baseline of aggression and anger going on. Lips are in anger as well. Lots of interruption as well going on. So pretty aggressive, pretty angry as a baseline here. Interesting. Just one more thing. What looks to me, and I love everybody else's opinion on this, to be juper's delight on that it will have zero punishment being in this situation. There's that asymmetrical, I think, juper's in there. Now, why jupping? Well, I, well, either it's because she wants us not to believe that it will have an effect on her or she knows that if she can make out that this society's punishment has no effect, then it really riles society. So is this the kind of trickster that loves to get one over on society? Is this the kind of personality that would just love and get enjoyment and a thrill from just tricking people? Don't know, don't know. Chase, what do you got? So I fully agree with you.  She tends toward kind of a three o'clock position. And what she's saying, I'm okay with that. I've got sisters in prison and all that. This has every hallmark we look for for a fabricated statement. There's a prolonged pause just to say the words, I'm okay with that. And twice she says it two times. The second time she says I'm okay with that is fading away. Scott may talk about what that means here in just a second. You hear Scott talk about this all the time. It's a lot lower volume than the first time. There's a baseline deviation two times for her recall, where she normally does recall and neither deviation was emotional accessing. But the question from the interview was specifically about emotion, which is a strong data point right here. There's fidgeting, there's postural adjustments during what should be a comfortable routine statement. And right after the statements, right at the very end here, you're going to see a sour pucker on the face. And Mark is the prime minister of lemons. And he will talk about that all day long. So it's kind of a sour lemon taste, some disagreement, some distaste in the mouth there. So some very strong data points here. And if I missed anything, if we missed anything, put it in the comments and we'll take a look. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so let's drop back to the last video and notice she controlled a smile when she was asked, do you feel remorse? Almost like I can't believe you'd ask me that. Some reason she was controlling a smile. I'll leave it at that on that part. And now let's move here. Her respiration is still up. That fighter flight is there. She starts to talk about family, people, other people in prison who've done this. She says he was a snitch. I killed him. There's the pattern. Look, I took one for the team. I'm going back to where other people who are like me are. If I were crafting a message to try to protect myself in prison or protect myself from somewhere outside prison, I probably would go down a list and say, like I was doing something vengeful to protect other people and, and, and, and. So let's just listen and see what we hear. But she's ramped up as usual. I think you're dead on chase. This is fabricated, intentional, crafted. She's trying to get something out. It's a matter of figuring out what it is. And could she be just this crazy? Absolutely.   And then figure out a way to set up an image for where she's going next into prison or to protect herself from somebody? Sure. Look, this woman is, you can tell she doesn't seem, like many of our subjects, so out of touch with reality that she is not paying attention to the guy across the room from her. She's keenly aware of what he's asking. She's almost setting up the next question with the way she responds. I almost would say she understands the concept of provocative statement because she throws out something so harsh that it forces him to ask the next question. He might not realize he's being worked, but we'll see that he does in just a little bit. Scott, what do you got? Yeah, that's a good one. So during the question, during that first question, her eyes widened a little bit and then she heard that shallow breath rating increases. This is really interesting the way she's reacting to all this. I think this might, I don't know if it's put on. I don't know if you can put that on for that long without passing out. There's something up here. She's got an expression of anger and frustration during that and her blink rate, again, is very low. Her cadence speeds up and her volume increases at that point. When Chasen was talking about earlier, when she starts getting quieter, we call that fading facts because when someone is being deceptive quite often, not every time it suggests that indicates that person may not be being honest with you because as they talk and give their answer, the answer gets quieter as they go along. Maybe not that big. It may be a little lighter than that, but it gets quieter at the end. It sort of tapers off and it's just a way of separating yourself from the lie as you always hear people talking about that. Nobody says, how do you feel about spending life in prison? Again, what you were saying, Mark, about that little, the dooper's delight there, what I noticed here, I've never seen this before.  It happens over there, then it happens over there. So I'm not sure what that is because most of her contempt is coming from her left side. And I'm not sure what's going on with it. I've never seen that before. I thought that was really interesting because I slowed it down, sped it and then speed it up, slowed it down a couple of times, put it back and forth on it. It was just fascinating. I couldn't figure that out. So I'm not sure what that means at this point. I don't know. I'm not really sure. I wanted to check equipment on that. Let me see. When she says, I've got many sisters in prison and I can't wait to see them. We see her upper teeth scrape the bottom of her lip and that equals stress. That's what we usually add those two together. You see that it's an adapter, but something's up here. So I think maybe as she's trying to create that picture, we're supposed to be seeing, maybe she's gone off the path a little bit and knows it and she's got to scoot you back over onto the right path at this point. This is really interesting so far. All right, we good? Yeah, all right. Um, the incident. Can you tell me anything about what happened during those three days while you were at it? What do you mean? I don't know. I took him to my house, walked him down the street. I don't know why the media acts like couldn't walk.  And again, your belief is that he was a snitch because he told you. You claimed that other people had been killed in that same part. You had killed other people.  No, I've never killed anyone else. So that was something to talk. Right. How do you feel about spending the rest of your life in prison? You know, I got a lot of family in prison and I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. I got many sisters in prison. I can't wait to see them.  And you don't want to talk about your past, but your lawyer said that, you know what, in sentencing you, the judge should bear in mind that you've had a really, really tough life. I started being hospitalized at 10 years old. I have a mental history from 10 years old until present, so yeah. When you say mental history, I mean, do you care that anyone feels sorry for you? Do you want anything? Feel sorry for me. Yeah, should the people who are watching this say because she had a bad child? Of course not. Because she had as mental illness? Of course not, no. Then we should feel some sympathy for you. No. You would not have that. I want no sympathy, no. What, then do you care what anybody thinks of Angela Simpson? No, I don't. It's, again, your candor. I've interviewed people who have committed murders before and usually they sort of prevaricate or this or that. You're about as direct as it gets. Right. Why is that? It's only fair. I expect you to be the same way. Okay, do you think that it was fair today? It was justice in that courtroom? No, I don't. Why? I should have gotten the death penalty.  No, no. I'd prefer to spend my life with my sisters, but I, yeah, I do believe that would have been justice.  Right, right. When you say your sisters, you're talking about women you know in prison. Right. Okay, and as you've found that there is some bonding and that you have made friends here that will be of some comfort to you when you're in prison. Most definitely, yes. Most definitely, yes. Yeah. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so look, clearly the acts that she's in prison for would be clearly under the banner of anti-social.  Okay, so however, however, she does seem to have a code. She does seem to have a sense of justice. So, you know, I'm trying to hold the two things together. She's totally anti-social. At the same time, she has this sense of justice going on. And then later on, should you've been given the death penalty? Well, yeah, I should. I should have. So again, there's a sense of justice, but society messed up. There's been a mistake here. Well, this is all really interesting.  So at this point, I'm going, is this an anti-social personality disorder? Or is this a psychopath? Like which one does this fall into? Which one is she trying to convince me of right now? Jury's still out for me. There's more videos to come. But that's the thing that I'm trying to balance out at the moment because it's very interesting what I think she's doing here. Scott, what do you got on this one? All right, I'll come out again and about the Dupers delight their little micro expression. I don't think that's what it was. I think it was contempt. I looked at that over and over and over again. And what happens is this pulls that up as that goes. Take a look at that. Slow down and check it out.  Could be wrong. That's just what I think. It's what it looks like to me. It's my opinion. So that's just because that really bothered me. I saw that a couple of times, too. Once that double thing happened, I zeroed in on that and started watching what she's doing. Her breathing rate still short, those short quick little breaths. And she's shown confirmation nods. A lot of times people think they're saying yeses or doing this. And they'll be saying no. But these are just confirmation nods. They hit on the words almost like illustrators. So they're hitting in time with the words. Maybe not right on the money, but they're really, really close. So that's what I call confirmation nods. And then when he says, do you think there was justice in the courtroom? Multiple little microexpressions of happiness or joy as they are termed. But they're blended with contempt. So I'm not so sure she wants to say all this, but it's part of her story of that, like you guys were saying, that point she's trying to make, which we'll get to in a little while. What is she trying to do here? I think that's part of it. She's sort of fighting that up here about what she wants to say and what she needs to say for her purpose. I guess you'd say at this point. All this indicates there's an issue there. Something's up. Something's not right here. So that's why we're seeing all these things bounce around. She said, when she said, I should have gotten the death penalty. We're actually seeing anger at that point, in my opinion. That's what it looks like. Now, after she says, I do believe that would have been justice. She bites her lip because I think she didn't want to say that, but she said it anyway because that's odd behavior. And overall, I'm going to say something's just not right here yet. Something's not happening. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, I agree with you. I think there's genuine confusion about wanting sympathy. And she's just unsure why somebody would even ask that kind of question. So this behavior in this clip suggests maybe a case of manufactured lucidity. That's what I'm going to call it. Where I believe she's trying to put on a mask of non emotion, presence, and perfection. And this is probably a behavior she grew up using in order to intimidate people. So this is most likely for legacy's sake, more than anything else. So I say her show that she's putting on is for legacy. That's my opinion. Greg, what do you got? I think it could be shark suit. Is what I think it could be. She could be going into a shark tank and this might be her shark suit. So I'll start with that. But I'm with you. My first note is confusion at feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for me.  Like clarify, please.  Looking at you. Contempt for what anyone thinks. Absolutely. I think Scott, I think there may be a dooper's delight in there as well. But there's a left side of that mouth comes up and she makes hard eye contact. When they ask her, do you care what anyone thinks? One of my favorites is she purses her lips when the guy says the word pervericate, which I learned that when I was in about seventh grade. I don't think I've ever used that word in my whole life, considering what I do that might be odd. But she does this when he says that, like, what are you talking about? Did you think it was justice? She does some internal voice and then some emotional eye accessing. And then she does an up left. And it's just a break eye contact before she says, no, I didn't think it. What I think she's trying to do here is get across a message. I'm afraid to die. I'm afraid to die. That's why I think it's hard for her to say those words. Scott to say, I think I should have been. But she's getting out that message, the crazy message. No, I should have been killed because she does that adapter thing again. She bites the inside of her mouth as she's saying it. I wonder, does she doing it for effect? What where? Here's that happening. But when they ask her about her children and she pauses and thinks about it later, she'll bite the inside of her mouth. There's an adapter going on there because what she's saying and what she's thinking, I don't think are tied together. So I think there's a lot of act here and she's trying to push that message across. We've heard loyalty, not afraid to die, taking one for the team. Let's see what else did I have in the list. I'll just wrap them up as we get further in. This starts to sound like a person who is creating a repellent so she doesn't get attacked. And you don't want to talk about your past.  I started being hospitalized at 10 years old. I have a mental history from 10 years old until present, so yeah. When you say mental history, I mean, do you care that anyone feel sorry for you? Do you want anything? Feel sorry for me. Yeah, should the people who are watching this say because she had a bad child? Of course not. Because she had as mental illness? Of course not, no. Then we should feel some sympathy for you. No. You would not have that. I want no sympathy, no. Then do you care what anybody thinks of Angela Simpson and what you have done? No, I don't. It's, again, your candor. I've interviewed people who have committed murders before, and usually they sort of provericate or this or that. You're about as direct as it gets. Right. Why is that? It's only fair. I expect you to be the same way. Okay. Do you think that it was fair today? It was justice in that courtroom? No, I don't. Why? I should have gotten the death penalty.  No, no.  But I, yeah, I do believe that would have been justice.  Right. That is you. Right. When you say your sisters, you're talking about women you know in prison. Right. Okay. And have you found that there is some bonding and that you have made friends here that will be of some comfort to you when you're in prison? Most definitely, yes. Most definitely, yes. What has the experience been like here in this facility? Horrible. Really? Yes, it's terrible. Jail is awful. They don't, they have no, well they have no compassion. They don't give us the things we need here. We'll be, we'll prison to you to the end.  I certainly hope so, yes. Have you done time in prison? No. So you're hoping that it will be a better existence? Yes, definitely.  You could be there a long time. Right. Right. But your belief is that you deserve the death penalty. Definitely. Well I believe God, that's what God says. Unless God is wrong, which I doubt so. Edward, what God has told you that or you just believe that? I believe that. You're an I. Right, right. I expected to die for this. What can you, what insights can you give us to you? What would you have anyone who may hear this interview know about you? There's really nothing. People are going to believe what they want to believe. Judge the way they want to judge, just like I do. So, so be it. All right, Greg, what do you got? I'm going to keep mine very short on this.  That if she were not talking about getting a death penalty because God wants it. She's lucid and rational. You could be having lunch with this woman over Chinese food and her talking to you about anything with the responses she has because they seem rational and lucid. I think to that point, Chase, everyone on here said, there's no easy, hey look, a psychopath. It takes a lot of work by other people. And if they know what those symptoms are, it can certainly pretend to be that. She does show some, a little bit of lip retraction at definitely. And then she says, I believe in God. Chase, you said all the time lip retraction withdrawal is needing reinforcement. If you don't think this illustrates that point better than anything we've ever seen, she goes definitely and then says, God says it. There's no better reinforcement than quoting God after you say it to get some kind of higher ground. Chase, what you got? There's not a whole lot here in this clip that speaks directly to the case, but I'm going to offer a pro tip here. When somebody describes a negative experience, listen very closely to the words that they use to describe it. The adjectives they use, like in this clip, horrible are meaningful to them in a negative way. Where if I wanted to describe something as negative later on in this interview, I'm better off using this person's words to describe something I want them to see as negative. Secondly, listen to why the experience was negative. We hear two distinct words here that are important to her, compassion and giving people what they need. Now, later in any conversation, you're going to know critical elements of what words and things people are looking for and the words they associate directly to negative experiences. You can do the exact same thing with positives, but pay attention to this. This works in every conversation. You don't have to be an interrogator. You just need to be a manager, leader, boss, parent, salesperson, fill in the blank. You can do this in pretty much every conversation. Scott, what do you got? All right. After the first question, she shows a one-sided smile. I think that's for show because she's never been in prison before, but she wants to make it look like at that point she has been in prison. She starts this pontificating about how bad things are and how would she know comparatively if she's never been in prison before. I think he busts her right there and it bothers her. I think the whole thing, I'm starting to think most of this is a show at this point. But overall, her blink rate stays low. Her breathing hasn't changed much at all, but her cadence speeds up and slows down. That's where we can focus on what the problem may be at that point, whereas she's fighting how to answer things. The attitude is all there, but what she wants to put in that attitude as it comes out, that's where the problem is. Usually, it's like you're trying to say something and mix the attitude and that together at the same time.  She just wants to know what's going to be riding on top of it when it comes out. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, really interesting. Look, she seems to put across this idea, this story that she has no concern for other people's judgments about what she did. That would, now somebody psychopathic will often have a massive concern about the judgments that are put on them because by certain definitions of psychopath, there should be narcissism there and narcissists are very concerned about what other people think. She's making a very clear statement and going, I don't really care what other people think. I don't care what you think. I did what I did because I was following a code, my code, God's code, criminal code. She's trying to put down, I think this idea of the prison has no compassion. They've got no compassion. So compassion is important to understand that they have no compassion. You would need compassion. She's saying they have no compassion. I follow a code. I think she's trying to put across the idea that she might be the criminal level of an antisocial personality disorder, which means, look, I do follow a code. I'm not just an out and out crazy. I follow a code and therefore I can comply. I'm probably a good person to have around in prison because I won't snitch on people. I know that's wrong. That's why I go around killing people because they're snitches and we don't, I follow a code. That's a big story at the moment from my point of view. So I wonder why is she trying to sell us that story? I've got a couple of good ideas as to why you would want to sell that story. Let's see how the story continues. Does she keep on selling that idea? What has the experience been like here in this facility? Horrible. Really? Yes. It's terrible. Jail is awful. They don't, they have no, well, they have no compassion. They don't give us the things we need here.  I certainly hope so. Have you done time in prison? No. So you're hoping that it will be a better existence? Yes, definitely.  You could be there a long time. Right. Right. But your belief is that you deserve the death penalty. Definitely. Well, I believe God. That's what God says. Unless God is wrong, which I doubt so. Edward, would God has told you that or you just believe that? I believe that. Right. Right. I expected to die for this. What can you, what, what insights can you give us to, to you? What would you have the anyone who may hear this interview know about you? There's really nothing. People are going to believe what they want to believe. Judge the way they want to judge, just like I do. So, so be it. Why did you feel like you were in a position to be the judge and jury in Terry Neely's life? I'm not sure. I mean, I'm really not trying to be angry, but I just, I want to see, you say, I killed this guy. He deserved to die, blah, blah, blah. I mean, it's pretty, it's there. You're up front. I want to know if, if you have any concerns about what, you know, what, what put you in that position to do that to that? It was just too much. The things he talked about, it was just, it was too much. Do you believe him?  Really? You don't say. Well, I think they talk about lying. I've got, I know people come, I've got associations with law enforcement. You know, I've got this, I'm a friend with this. Do you happen to have a list of those people? They name drop, well, maybe in the circle, but you know what I'm saying? People say lots of things to make themselves sort of look. Well, he picked the wrong to say that to. If he wanted to brag about putting so many people in prison, you picked the wrong person. And that's what, that's what did it to him. That's what, that's why you- What the bragging? The bragging about putting people in prison. Right. People you know? No. No, I don't know any of that. Okay. Do you believe him? Do you think he really was a snitch? Oops, if he wasn't. Yes, I believe he was. Yeah. All right, Chase, what do you got? In this clip, you're going to see a genuine search for an answer at this question about judge and jury. And that's, that's pretty genuine. But right at the end here, that's where I want to concentrate on. We're like, well, oops, if he wasn't, that's fake. And I'll tell you why. And these gentlemen here may tell you even more reasons why. So right here, the interviewer, I think, is genuinely at a loss for words. Genuinely. Angela interprets this a little, a little bit differently though. She thinks he's choosing not to say anything. This is a big deal. This makes her uncomfortable. This, she uncrosses her legs, which is less comfortable. The more we get our bodies into a position where we're ready to run away, the less comfortable we probably are in a situation.  She does care. She does feel she, she is not immune to some kind of social pressure. So where does she develop this mask? In Greg's words, the organism does what makes it successful. In my words, we're all a product. Every one of us we're a product of childhood suffering and reward. And this was either a mask to escape suffering or to gain some kind of social reward. I think it was escape or avoidance of some kind of danger. And that's what the mask we're seeing that was probably developed at a very young age. So anytime we're seeing a serial killer, we talk about the psychopaths, criminals, all this other stuff that we talk about on this channel, we do good stuff too. If you're not subscribed yet, we do good stuff too, I promise. They're all a product of something that happened when they were younger. And that doesn't excuse any of the behavior. But we're looking at a product of something that happened at a young age a lot of times. And we're looking at all these defense mechanisms that developed from a very young age. So try to see maybe your employees or your kids or your relatives at Thanksgiving's coming up through that lens. This is a product of defense mechanisms from a younger age. Might help you to see the world a little bit differently. Mark, what do you think? Yeah, just one thing that interests me around this again is this idea of somebody broke the code and therefore, you know, they deserve or they have to have this retribution on them. And maybe I'm thinking that's because she understands that somebody sociopathic would have a code, just not your code. That's the nature of, you know, we all live in different societies.  And it may not fit the DSM's idea of that. But it fits my idea of that, which if you break my codes, you're not social, you're anti social. Once more, I think she's trying to push this idea of I was doing the socially right thing. Just it may seem a little bit odd to you to me. It's like, well, why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you do that? It's the normal thing to do for somebody like me who keeps a certain code. That's all I got on that one. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I agree with you, Chase. There's genuine, she's looking for an answer. There's congruent signaling that I'm not sure. Her eyes narrow, she looks down right and her head withdraws rapidly when she's trying to think, Hey, what's the answer? This laugh, however, is the beginning of me knowing this is for show. This laugh is now she's been trying to contain it. We saw kind of creeping out a little bit in the beginning. We see it here.   But he waited for approval before he would let that smile go. She doesn't. She breaks up and then she comes back. When he says this is when he stumbles and steps in it. When he says plenty of people say their snitches. Oh, really? That's the oh, really in your world, they may, but they don't hear. And this is when she does exactly what I was saying is a provocative statement. She boom, goes back at him quickly. And she asks for a list. And when she does that, there's a lilt in the way she says, and that's maybe in your world is what that is. Oh, really?  And he starts to backpedal. What I see here, Chase, is tied into what you're talking about.  She's smart. You can tell she's probably considered very street smart and very tough to deal with. And if you're smart and you're quick and you have tons of words you can use things like oops, if he didn't, that probably is something she said before. It's not something she genuinely just came up with. But it's a set of tools. Watch her adapt as she says you picked the wrong person. That's some bravado and some shooting across the bow before she goes to prison. And then that final thing just throwing out those words, that's her ability to take control of the situation for that moment. And Chase, I'm not sure if her legs moving or related to her usual runaway or usual get up and go at you, but something in that whole thing in repositioning means something. Scott, what do you got? All right. I think when she's discussing, when they're discussing the part that she feels she was judging jury, that sounds like it wasn't thought out. I think she's just going with it at that point. She knows the concept, the idea, but she doesn't structure or anything. That's why there's no policy just goes. I think she's just going with it at that point. Now, when she asked, like you were saying, Greg, when she asked her that list, I think she's trying to take control of the conversation a little bit there to give herself some oomph in that whole thing. Because she sees her opening, you're right, and like jumps in and tries to get it.  That's what they say. Find the biggest person in there and, you know, invite that person. I think that that may be part of what we're seeing here. She's trying to make herself seem meaner and put on this persona before she goes and starts this new life in prison. To me, that's what it seems like. And everything seems to be circling around this. And I do agree as well. We're seeing these little things that look like hallmarks of psychopathy, but it's just by the way she's talking. She did some horrendous stuff. Don't get me wrong. But at the same time, I think she's creating a persona here to go in to put around her to protect herself as she goes into prison so people stay away from her and be afraid of her. Why did you feel like you were in a position to be the judge and jury in Terry Neely's life? I'm not sure. I mean, I'm really not trying to get you angry, but I just, I want to see, you say, I killed this guy. He deserved me to die, blah, blah, blah.  I want to know if you have any concerns about what, you know, what put you in that position to do that to that? It was just too much. The things he talked about, it was just, it was too much. Do you believe him?  Really? You don't say. Well, I think they talk about it a lot. I've got, I know people come, I've got associations with law enforcement. You know, I've got this, I'm a friend with this. Do you happen to have a list of those people? They name drop, well, maybe in the circle, but you know what I'm saying? People say lots of things to make themselves sort of look. Well, he picked the wrong, to say that too. If he wanted to brag about putting so many people in prison, you picked the wrong person. And that's what, that's what did it to him. That's why, that's why. What, the bragging? The bragging about putting people in prison. Right. People you know. No. No, I don't know any of that. Okay. Do you believe him? Do you think he really was a snitch? Oops, if he wasn't. Yes, I believe he was. Yeah. Do you have a family? I do. From an adopted family? I have four children. You have four children? I do have four children. Where are they? Elmerash. What is, how are they doing? And how is it for you to be separated from them? I don't want to talk about my children. I can't do that. Is there, is there a message for what, is there a bottom line or a lesson to be learned from the story of Angela Simpson? She has a bottom line to everything. But what, what is the bottom line to this story? Whatever people want it to be. If I, it doesn't matter what I say. All right. Well, I'll go first on this one. I think this is where we see the first real emotion in here. So she starts talking about her children because her cadence slows down, her voice gets quiet, and she starts to breathe a little bit deeper at this point, almost like she's relaxing. As it's dawning on her, she's not going to be around those, those kids as they grow up. And I think before she answers, I think she does give a little bit of, of thought to what she's going to say. She does. I think the attitude is completely gone at this point. And so she's just kind of ride along saying how she really feels. And I think she's having trouble keeping up that scary, scary exterior as she's thinking about this new life she's got coming. Greg, what do you got? Yeah. She's plenty scary. She did some horrible things to this guy. So let's not forget that. So she's plenty scary. She's capable of monstrous acts. But there's frustration with this guy and she breaks eye contact and she does an emphatic out breath just before she choose the inside of her mouth again. And this is the way I knew if I go back and look, the other three, I could tell there's something going on there because this is when she's talking about her child. I think she's got a message she wants out. And all of this is part of that message in my opinion. Now she also moves her feet when she's talking about her children. And he has the most riveting style. How about your children? And yeah, he didn't sound in the least bit interested in her children. I'm sure that's not how you gain any kind of empathy with her. So far we've heard words of vengeance, lack of remorse, not afraid to die. She took one for the team. And we're hearing about loyalty. I can't talk about my children. She'll talk about loyalty again in just a minute. So that message is starting to come together pretty quickly. Chase, what do you got? We're seeing a lot more social behavior here. There's the eye contact avoidance and two separate requests to change the subject. So we're seeing a truthful desire not to bring the children into the conversation. That's not what you would see in the prototypical psychopath. She's saying, I don't want to talk about my children. I can't do that. The eyes go down and center, which is kind of a self reflection place. And there's some genuine stuff there that is against the mask that she's trying to portray. So we're seeing another crack in the mask. We're getting to see behind that a little bit and a little bit more. Scott. All right. I've already been. He's already gone. That was a test. Mark, go ahead. So clearly that there is a change in her usual demeanor, a change in baseline here when the children are talked about. I am still undecided as to whether this is true feelings or something being put on. I'm still at this point in the videos unsure as to whether which one is the act. I'm still trying to work out which one is the act. Do you have a family? I do. From an adopted family? I have four children. You have four children? I do have four children. Where are they? El Mirage. What is how they doing and how is it for you to be separated? I don't want to talk about my children. I can't do that. Is there a message for what is there a bottom line or a lesson to be learned from the story of Angela Simpson? There's a bottom line to everything. Whatever people want it to be. It doesn't matter what I say. Insights that you you don't regret killing this guy. I don't regret killing him, no. I regret the fact that my co-defendants found it necessary to divulge so much information to the detectives. I regret that. They were people I really cared about and I regret that they were near me or around me at any point. And then helped prosecutors? Helped the prosecution, correct. You were afraid of those people? Definitely because they didn't know they weren't actually with me during any of my crimes. So for them to say that they were to try to get lesser sentences was a little heartbreaking. So friends of yours lied to prosecutors and lied to police? Correct. They dropped the dime on you? Correct. They snitched on you? Correct. If you could, would you do to them what you did to Jerry? No, I would not. Because you still have some relationship with them? Well, no, but they were I had a claimed a bond with them at one point, so I wouldn't be able to avenge that. Yeah, yeah. All right, Greg, what do you got?  She says no.  We'll see. Her brow goes down at divulge information to the detectives where she's talking about her cohorts. And then she does eye blocking at people I cared about, really pronounced for her in this whole thing. And then she moves to mild disgust around when she's talking when she's saying I when she's saying mild. I'm sorry, when she says near or around me at any point, you see a little bit more of the nose wrinkling. And then this betrayal is what I think is causing all of that where she doesn't trust these guys. And she when he's asked when he asked, can you could you avenge yourself?  She's very clear. She says I can't because I had claimed a bond to them and she doesn't live up compression. And she does live up compression. This is why I think market might be bigger than in jail. I immediately jumped to Shark Tank, you know, this shark armor. But then I think did they investigate to see if maybe she had some tie to somebody outside of here?  It seems almost like you're telling a story that's for somebody's consumption very specifically because that one's strong on loyalty that I don't rat people out. I also am not going to avenge people who did rat me out. Chase, what do you got? Yeah. So at the mention of the co-defendants, there's anger. You can see it on the face. The eyes are starting to tighten down. There's emotional accessing where the eyes go down into her right, which will be your left. And there's more lower teeth exposure here, which we're more likely to see during anger. And there's downward eyebrows. The eyebrows kind of come down and together. And there's not a whole lot here, but you can really see true and genuine emotion here. And from a behavior profiler's perspective, this is one of those hallmarks where I would baseline. This is what genuine anger looks like. And I might ask her a question later in the interview that might elicit some anger to see if it's genuine or not. Mark, what do you think? Yeah. So here's my logic problem here.  Well, would you do that to these rats? No, not those rats. Okay.  That's a possibility. I get that. She says a claim to bond. I may not fully understand what her meaning of claim to bond is. My understanding of claim to bond is that somebody holds something that is owed to you. And so now this has gone outside of the code. If I'm accurate, which put down below if I'm completely wrong, but if I'm accurate, she kills some rats, but rats that owe her something, then she doesn't kill them. So that's now pretty self-serving. So which one is it?  So again, I am still somewhere in the middle of going, I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but it could be that I have this wrong and it's simply that she's worried that they're going to go get her kids and she does truly care for her, for these four kids. Scott, what do you got on this one? All right. I think we're seeing true anger here. I think you're right. Chase, we're seeing emotions. We're seeing things that say there's somebody in there who see her nostrils are flaring, her movements are stiff, her blink rate goes up. All these things that show us that there's something going on in there. Her answers are those longer than those short, sharp answers. She's given longer, more thought-out answers. And again, like you guys were saying, she talks about a binge in those who turned on her. Her voice gets weak. Her breath rate increases again. And she loosens up just a little bit. So I think she's, we're seeing her experience emotion here, which tells us if it is true emotion, then we're not dealing with psychopath. All right. We're good? Good. Insights that you don't regret killing this guy. I don't regret killing him, no. I regret the fact that my co-defendants found it necessary to divulge so much information to the detectives. I regret that. They were people I really cared about. And I regret that they were near me or around me at any point. And then helped prosecutors. Helped the prosecution, correct. You were angry at those people. Definitely, because they didn't know. They weren't actually with me during any of my crimes. So for them to say that they were to try to get lesser sentences was a little heartbreaking. So friends of yours lied to prosecutors and lied to police. Correct. They dropped the dime on you. Correct. They snitched on you. Correct. If you could, would you do to them what you didn't carry? No, I would not. Because you'd still have some relationship with them? Well, no, but they were, I had a claim to bond with them at one point, so I wouldn't be able to avenge that. Yeah. Yeah. Will you kill again? If the opportunity arises, I hope so. Okay, let's, we're done. Are you done? Yeah. All right. Thank you, Rachel. Good. No, that's going to be crazy, isn't it? That's going to be wicked. Make it look good, please. Oh, you're just, you're going to put this on too? Let's do that. Well, like, you know what I mean. Don't put the ending on. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's the best we should see you. Right. Ladies, thank you. Thank you. Very real. I can't, I can honestly. Call me again. This guy is incorrigible. Huh? Okay. I'm incorrigible. He's incorrigible. We're both incorrigible. Right. That's what we should see you. Thank you. I have that. Well. All right, Chase, what do you got? The mask comes off.  And you know how I know that? Those are her words to describe it. Those are her words to describe how she wants to be portrayed, how she wants the video to look. Her tone of voice, her accent, even her face completely just changes as this mask falls off here. And when the camera pans over to her and she realizes it, you can see a perfect illustration of digital flexion here, her hands down here. And you can see the fingers go right up and it's perfect digital flexion. The fingers curling towards the palm. This is a classic example of stress here. And if you're a beginner at body language, try to just, when you start reading body language, just try to start reading the body. Is it opening or closing? Just make that kind of a good starting point. Is it opening up or is it closing down? And that's all I got for that one. Scott, what do you got? I totally agree with you nailed it on that. Because if we were seeing a true psychopath, now in some ways, if she was a brilliant psychopath, she could be doing that to like buddy up with the guy. She could be faking all that as well. But that burst of it coming out like that and that excitement that she's showing, the psychopath wouldn't go that far with it. So you wouldn't see out, you wouldn't hear the giggling and things. You would just see him come straight form and be in a better mood, quote unquote. So at that point, I think we're seeing what she truly is. The mask comes off there. And I agree with the chase. When you first start observing body language, one of the things you want to look for are the open or closing. And are they comfortable or are they uncomfortable? Are they becoming uncomfortable if they were at first comfortable? Start looking for those things. And we've told you the cues to look for. Those are the adapters. The things they'll show you, they'll get rid of that built up stress or tension. They're moving their shoulders, their hands, those types of things. So just are they opening up or closing up? Are they comfortable? Are they uncomfortable? And if they are comfortable and all of a sudden you notice they're uncomfortable, what's happened between those two things? Start watching for that. Mark, what do you got? Well, I might be going a different way on this because I think we get the laughter of a thrill just being had. I think we get make it look good. So now concerned about how she looks. Please don't show this. Again, concern with how it looks that the act comes out right. I think if I were to go to the casino on this, now I'm bringing in as well the unique severity of the crime as well, which is not what I would be used to with somebody who is criminally sociopathic. There's a level of joy and delight. Three days of pleasure. So given that, so I'm bringing that in and given what's gone on here, I would go to the casino that we have a real trickster here and we have somebody who knows they're going to prison and you will do better off if you know the criminal code and if you're seen as a good criminal sociopath rather than a psychopath, because it's not going to go so well for you. I would say I'm gambling here, I'm gambling here, but that's the way I would gamble on this one because I think in terms of the criminal code, she gets it wrong too many times. It trips up too many times for me. That may be contrary to what everybody else is thinking. That's the way I put my money. Greg, what do you got? No, I think we're all on the same page. I think it's differing angles on the same page. I'll add one more to your guys' things about her open and close. There's some gravity-defying action in this whole thing when she realizes, yeah, I aced it. You see all that? People don't do that when they're pretending. That's, hey, look, I aced what I was here to do. She doesn't realize they're going to go and broadcast that. So that makes her human again. I think she thinks she was able to keep it up and you're dead on and mark them on the same page. We talked about vengeance, lack of remorse, not afraid to die, took one for the team, loyalty, and said, I'll do it again. That is saying, don't mess with me. That's exactly what I think she just did and thought she had it until they show that last piece. And that's when she starts to be human. And I think what we're seeing is a person who's doing her best to make herself big for there. Yeah, clearly she's sick. We all know that. We all know she's some kind of a sicko. We got crazy across the table, kind of crazy. We're just, we're just slicing hairs at this point. That's my opinion. Will you kill again? If the opportunity arises, I hope so. Okay, let's, we're done. Are you done? Yeah. All right. Thank you, Rachel. Good. That's going to be crazy, isn't it? That's going to be wicked. Make it look good, please. Oh, you're going to put this on too? That's going to, you're going to have to go. Don't put the ending on. Thank you. That is the best we should see you. Ladies, thank you. Thank you. Very real. I can't, I honestly can't. Tell me again, this guy is incorrigible. Okay. I'm incorrigible. He's incorrigible. We're both incorrigible. Best wishes to you. Thank you.  All right. Well. All right, we'll throw around the room one time and see what everybody thinks about what we've, been watching. Mark, you want to go first? Yeah. Real tricks to here. Really interesting. Really interesting. I'm still a little bit undecided. I'm still at the casino, laying a 50-50 gamble on this one. Chase. Yeah. I'll just say, when somebody develops a mask in childhood or in adulthood, it's typically whatever they're trying to hide, it's the exact opposite of what they're trying to hide because a mask is unconscious. And we tend to just say, oh, the opposite of what I'm trying to hide will look like I don't have that at all, even though the midway point is more acceptable. So whatever we're seeing when it comes to a mask, the opposite is usually what's hiding behind that mask. Greg? Yeah. Well, the one thing that we do know is, I agree with you, but the one thing we do know is there's a whole bunch of crazy behind that mask because of the actions she took. So the crazy part, we probably got. Crazy comes in lots of flavors, and we're just trying to decide what that is. But we clearly saw her come in with a message to deliver, deliver that message. And we saw occasionally a fracture in that and a smile or nervous something, and even some doopers or something similar to tell us that she thought she'd gotten away with things until the end. And then after all that work, after all that crazy, her cover gets blown. Scott, what do you got? All right.  Now, I agree with Mark. I agree with everybody. She's not a psychopath. I wouldn't take it in my opinion. You can't tell really. You have to do a bunch of studies on them. Take sometimes like a 74 up to a year to figure out if they are not. However, in this case, like Mark was saying, taking into consideration what she did for three days to this person, the torture she put on this person, you have a psychopath, and you have what people call sociopath. So that's what Mark is talking about. He says sociopath because in real life, a sociopath doesn't exist. It was, it was used, that term is used to soften psychopath. So it doesn't sound so bad in a psychopath. As, as we talk about a clinical psychopath, is when they're making it, they don't work correctly, which means their limbic system doesn't work correctly. And they have no empathy for someone else, not sympathy. You know, sympathy. Oh, I know that must hurt all that poor guy. Bet that hurts that poor little child. They don't feel like that. They can't imagine feeling like that person feels. That's the empathetic part of it. And they have none of that. I think she has empathy. I think she has empathy for her children. I think she has empathy for a lot of things.  I think she would be what people call sociopath, which is just a really hardcore criminal. And I think that's what she is with a horrible upbringing. Whatever her, her, this story with her parents were up, but it was horrible. And that's what turned her into a hardcore criminal that could be able to put that kind of horror on someone else and in their life. All right, fellas. I think this is a good one. And we'll see you next time.


The Park Rabbits tennis team had an exceptional season making it to the team's section final but after a tough loss to East Grand Forks the singles and doubles players had just one day to regroup and make history of their own. I knew that we just it was done we had to move on and that we had a chance so needed to focus on that if we wanted to get anywhere. And what the Panthers got was champions in the section singles and doubles tournament for the first time in school history. In singles Natalie Kinkel won 48 games to just two losses on her way to her first section crown. Second place was good last year but first place I don't know I wanted that was my goal all season I just wanted to be Jody from Roseau. She just wanted to be the section champ this year because last year she got second and other years she really wanted to go and others were just a little better than her and she just really wanted to be the section champ this year. I was playing consistent during those matches because I knew I could beat everybody so I just took it point by point and got all of them. In doubles senior Kendra Coburn and freshman Abby Morris both traditional singles players joined together and had to create quick chemistry to take down the field. It took a little bit of a few practices was pretty hard but once we got to the sections we just kind of knew that we had to do it so it just worked out good. I never thought I'd get this far at this young of an age. I knew it was possible but I never thought it would happen. They'll have a tough task going against the top players in the state tomorrow but they're already proud of how far they've come. I think we're just going in trying to have fun already happy that we made it this far but we're also going to give it like our all. Just enjoy it because getting the state is so exciting and an accomplishment in itself. And that state tournament will kick off tomorrow morning as both Park Rapids teams will be playing but they are not the only girls from our area making the trip down to the cities as Jody Estrosky from Rozo as you heard she finished second in that tournament and Courtney Bowler from Pequot Lakes are both competing in the singles tournaments. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


I like how that's all I have to say. You're fine? Yeah. I will be American with you. All right. So welcome back.  And this will be the last JSS this summer. Oh, yeah? It's kind of good to be doing, you know. Next weekend. Anyway, today I'm happy to have Giovanni to talk about some analysis. I guess. Is that a good problem? Yeah. So as I mentioned in the abstract, I have a really problem I want to talk today, but that is more an excuse to talk about other things. So I'm going to write down the problems and to state the theorem that I want to prove. But then we're just going to forget about the problem, talk about interesting things that can be used elsewhere. And at the end, we'll probably be able to talk about the problem a little bit more. So the P I want to solve is the following one. So with that, since I'm only interested in very, like in problems that are interesting from the physical point of view, I'm going to assume that n is either 1, 2, or 3. And omega is an open bounded, the boundary to be sufficiently nice. So that's a small problem. Anything that allows you to solve an elliptic equation is fine. So elliptic is fine. Then we fix a nothing. We have a parameter alpha in 0, 1. The problem I want to solve is 1 minus alpha of ut. So u is a function of two variables, s and t. s is the space variable at this time. So ut is the derivative with respect to time. So 1 minus alpha derivative with respect to time equals to the last one, the function of w. This is just the trace of the s. And alpha ut. What's w? W is a function. The last one is the trace of the x. That's what it is.  And I want these two equations to be satisfied for x in omega and t plus omega. What is f of u? f is just the function of u. And I'm going to give an explicit formula for 100 seconds. Then we have boundary conditions u equal to w equal to 0. And I want this one to be satisfied of boundary conditions. So for f's in the boundary of omega and t plus omega. And we also have an initial condition. Time 0, u of x is equal to u 0 of x. So the unknowns are u, the unknowns are u and w. And the thing of the problem is the seven omega. The initial condition u 0 and the fourth f. So what I'm going to assume on u 0 and f is that the first assumption is on f. f has to be a polynomial u. So f of u is equal to the sum of j from 0 to n minus 1 of v j u to the power j. And I want v to n minus 1 to be negative. And I'm also going to require that v to n is equal to 2 when the dimension is equal to 3. These assumptions over here, they're not very important from the analytic point of view. They're because of the physical meaning of the problem. What is that? Power of u or j of v? It's a polynomial. As you might have noticed, the reason why I want the last one to be negative is that, for example, take n equal to 3. A polynomial that satisfies this is x minus x to the power 3. Which is the derivative of the double-web product. This is somewhat the typical expression for, well, I should say u. This is somewhat the typical expression a little bit. You have to keep in mind for u. Okay. And the next thing is a conditional initial data, u 0. I want to u 0 to be h 1 0 of m. This is the space of square integrable functions that have a distribution of the derivative u prime, which is in 2. And u is equal to 0 on the boundary of a linear sum. The theorem that I want to prove is a well-posed next theorem. So I want to prove that under these two assumptions, I can guarantee the existence and the uniqueness of a solution to the problem. So if... What's the reason for, if I add those two first equations together and I have an equation in the UT, one equation, right? Why do I want two equations? That's exactly what I'm going to talk about in a second. I have a solution for p. I'm going to mention that what classical means shouldn't be p, or something I'm going to define at some point. So yeah, it's almost not using the double-deceased term, right? But it's worth spending some time to look at this problem. And you can think of alpha as interpolating something. It's interpolating the equations like alpha equals u and alpha equal 1. When alpha is equal to 0, then you can solve for w in the second one, minus a classical u, minus... And you can put this thing into the first one and get 1 minus alpha, alpha equals 0. It's equal to the left equation, minus the classical calendar equation. Put to 1, this first term disappears, so we get that the left constant of w is... So then we also have that w is 0 on the boundary of omega. And so by uniqueness of solutions to the left constant equation, we get that w... And if w is constantly equal to 0, the only equation we are left with is... Now, alpha is equal to 1, so it's semi-linear equation. So this c-system is inter-living between a second-quarter semi-linear equation and a fourth-quarter semi-linear equation, right? It's fourth-quarter because I have the composition of the robot, so I have four spatial derivatives. This is another reason why this problem was considered in the first place. This problem is very well understood while this one is more complicated. So there might be hope to get something about this problem by taking limit over alpha that goes to 0 of things that you can say about this problem. That's a very big idea. This notion that you have of interpolating is very vague, right? It is very vague. What does it mean? What is supposed to represent this interpolation? It does not represent anything. It's a c-system that depends on how far. When alpha is 0, you get an equation that is well known. When alpha is 1, it's not an equation. You can consider this. Is there any reason why you would not consider this instead? I would only consider any system if there was a reason. As I said, there is a reason. It has a physical meaning. You can derive this one with a link from the field equations, which I don't really know they are, but it comes up in places. As I said, it's not the GIM of my class. I have a problem that I can solve with the techniques I want to use. We have a PDE, and we want to regret the PDE as an ODE, but in a balanced space. To give another motivation about the tools I'm going to introduce, let's first consider the case in which the balanced space is a GIM space RM, and we're given a matrix N by N matrix A. We all know that if you look at the differential equation, u' of t equals 2A, and u of t, the solution to this problem is... The game we want to play is to have a way of defining something that, in a sense, behaves like the exponential of a matrix or an overrader in our case. The way you define the exponential of a matrix is already a good way of defining this object for bounded overraders. The way you define this thing for matrices is to define e to dA using the power series, right? So the sum of k times 0 to infinity of tA. And it's clear that we can extend this definition to linear bounded overraders in the following way. So if we have my generic balanced space X, and we have u' of t equals 2A, and u of 0 equals x, with a initial word, and we can define this overrader a e to the dA. And if you apply this overrader to the initial data u0, then you can show that this actually solves the problem. And it's interesting to notice that as soon as you can make sense of something like this, you can actually solve much more complicated problems. For instance, since we're interested in estimating your problems, we can also consider the case in which we have f of s u of s. And in this case, the solution will be given by the variation of constant method, right? We can define u of t. What's the problem in the case that a is a linear bounded overrader? But of course, the interesting case is, as you will know, the complicated one. So we want to solve p e, right? So our overrader a is going to be some differential overrader. And differential overraders are known to be unbalanced, right? So we have to be able to say something about the case in which a is unbalanced. So I hope that this might be the definitions that I'm going to give. I should say that in the following, we're always going to assume that x is a contract spawned space, which is the domain of your overrader. We assume that a is closed. That was about to give you the following one. So a family, a semi-group from x to s, and the bounded, since one is veracity. And we want t of 0 to be the identity map on x. So we want t of 0 of u equal to u for every ruin at z. We want t to satisfy a semi-group though. So something of the form t of t plus s equals to t of t times t s. We want this one for every t and s positive. We also would like to have the map that takes t into t of t of x to be continuous. So a family of overraders that satisfies this probability is called the same group. And this is the object that is going to play the same role of the exponential of the matrix. So the question might be, okay, when I have the exponential of a matrix, I also have the matrix I started with, right? So is there anything that looks like this matrix A that is related to that family of a semi-group? And the answer is yes. It's what is called the infinitesimal generator of a semi-group. So definition. I should just define this definition like this. So if you have e to the t a, how do you get a? You take a derivative and you evaluate it 0, right? So we want to mimic the same thing. The way we do this for an unbounded overrader is we define the domain of A first. We define this to be a set of all x in x for which the limit as t goes to 0 on the right of t of t x. Once we have the set of points for which we can take this limit, we're going to define A of x to be, it's finally here, this corrects. So exactly the same thing we've been doing in this case, we're here, but you have to be a little bit careful because you have to, like, there is no guarantee that this limit is going to exist for every other sentence. Okay, and we could say that A is called, I should mention that usually in applications you have the PDE, which you would write as node e, and ideally you have A in the map t of t. So what, like, usually, like, what you want to do is to, like, give an A, you want to be able to find the overrader, the same group that is generated by A. And there is, this is not always possible. It's not true that even any overrader A, there is a, that A is a generator for the same group. So we have to restrict our attention to, like, the smaller class of overraders for which we can say something more. This leads to the following definition. We say that minus zero resolved in a way, so it's the, this is the subset of the complex plane of the lambda for which lambda i, lambda n to the minus a is invertible. And this object here is a sector in the complex plane, and this is the opening angle of the sector. So for instance, s, s, let's say s omega would look like, sorry, we have omega here and omega here, and it's this set here. In this case, we have delta is positive, and we're adding pi over 2. So it's going to look like this. So this is delta plus pi over 2. And this whole set is contained into the resolved overrader, in the resolved overrader. So this is a way of saying that the spectrum of A is somewhat confined to this sector here. And the spectrum of A is, like, it's the set of points from which this is not invertible essentially. So it's like saying the bad set is confined to something that we have control. And what plays a really important role is the space that we have there. And this is going to be clear from the next definition, but you play out of this extra space you get here. Oh, I should also say that we need an estimate on the resolved overrader. So for every epsilon positive, this is still part of the definition. There exists a constant and an epsilon such as the inverse of the epsilon over the absolute value of lambda, the length of lambda. And this is true for every lambda different from 0. S delta plus pi. So you have a slightly smaller set. So you want to be an epsilon part from the other set. Finish. If A begins to define the number T of T, we want it to be, okay, the identity when T is equal to 0, the 1 over her gamma of E to the lambda R to the lambda. And this is for all T in S delta. The reason for this is that if you look at this picture, so this is delta, then S delta is this one. So any T in S delta has positive real R, right? And what I want from gamma is to do something like this. I want gamma to go to infinity, like in this region here, go back here and then go to infinity over there. In this way I have that the real part of T is positive, but the real part of lambda is negative. So that the real part of this number is going to be negative. And I get the convergence of this. Okay. And so you come up with this amount. And what you say about this is that you're going to build a few properties. So what you're going to build is Z.


Obviously, we saw a lot of interesting work in the integrated campaigns. We saw corporates, corporate communication companies or agencies using a lot of integrated tools to communicate an issue or talk about an issue, whether it was using public relations, outdoor, advertising, videos, social media and I think an amalgamation of all these tools is what really bold us over for some of the campaigns that we saw. Excellent effort and I think PR in India and communication in India is doing some fantastic work and again well deserved to all those winners for the integrated campaign.