That's why I have her friend say it was blow blotcher and see. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so I love this. I want to concentrate on the neighbor. Okay. What I want you to notice is even when he's controlling the TV, his eyes are actually on what's and you'll see his eye movement in his head movement is following what's his movement. So I would suggest the neighbor already knows this is odd behavior. Okay. This is a rhythm that's either odd for what's or very likely as well, just odd to have in his space. Because my guess is he will be able to smell the fear. I mean, literally, he will be having an old factory response to the molecules that the lactic acid and the uric acid that is a byproduct of that fact leaving because of the adrenaline that's running around there. He'll literally be able to smell that. But you'll see his eyes are watching him even as he's doing some other operation there. So the neighbor is onto him around that, really special to see, I think. And I just want to pick up on the end of, again, another redirect at the end around the medical issue, a potential medical issue. It's just like, like somebody's ill, look over there. Again, classic redirect on that one. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so you guys have hit a lot of this. Mark, I'm going to go back and talk for a minute about that smell. Because having worked with prisoners most of my life, I can tell you that there was a smell you can't mistake. I have no sense of smell left these days, but I could still smell that because it's more than a smell. It's a heavy feeling at the back of your sinuses, the back of your throat when you're around people who are in the heightened fight or flight enough that they're starting to produce all those chemicals. Interestingly, when people go through ketosis and they go through starvation and all this stuff, a person's biology makes the smell. So some people would smell like perfume.  Some people smell like flowers. It's just a different smell depending on who you're around.  I've had plenty of people under high duress, and I've seen enough of them to know that the smell is there. But that heavy fear smell is certainly there. So mark your dead on with that. The other one, this guy who's his neighbor said he never did this thing. I watched an interview with him. He said he never did this thing. So yeah, of course, he knows this guy is turned. This guy's turned and is running, and the dogs are about to go after him. And so it'll be interesting to watch. He's doing a ton of adapters. He's doing whatever it takes. He's dancing around and trying to get rid of all that nervous energy. That phone again, for him, is that nervous energy. He can touch that. And that phone is bigger. Guys, in our culture, you can't miss how powerful this mark kids you're dead on that you see them touching this thing constantly. It's a reason there's screen time. It's addictive to people. It's that powerful reason you track screen time and know how much you've done it. So all of that energy has to go somewhere. And quite candidly, I've not weighed in on this guy, but his level of scumbaggery is off the scale. This guy, I'm certain he choked his wife. We know he choked his wife to death. He said how he did it. I think then he went about killing his children.  He killed her. That was his story.  This guy is among some of the worst. And I think that's why you see Chase is very frustrated talking about him and Scott and Mark. I mean, guys, this is a level you don't usually see. And these people know that this guy's done that.  Okay, were you guys just friends or anything else? Yeah, we were good friends. Yeah. Was there ever any relationship or anything that developed between you guys?  It's relating to his wife. Okay. Okay, did you know her? Not really. I mean, I knew that he married years ago. Did you ever meet her? God, I don't know. Do you know who she was or anything? Well, I think it's been a long time ago. I may have met her. Geez, you know. Yeah, I think there's a lot of distancing language here. So there's a lot of not really, then again, not really. It was years ago. Did you ever meet her? She says, God, I don't know. They're more distancing. It's been such a long time ago. More distancing. I may have met her more distancing. And I want to tell you that there's in my training, I teach there's four things that guilty people go through that after the crime has been committed, they go through gravity of just a realization of what's going on. They go through rationalization. Well, I did it because of this. I had to do it. Then they go through projection. And it's somebody else's fault because or it's this environment or parents, whatever. Then they go through stage four, which is denial planning, planning some kind of a story on what's going on. And here's a cool tip that no matter if you're talking to your kids or somebody at work, that suspects will typically reveal a few things right away in the interrogation, not just their baseline. One, they're going to show you their denial strategy because they've been going through this denial strategy. And they'll typically reveal the theme of how they processed guilt psychologically. And here we're seeing and hearing her use time as a cleanser of sins and memory. So we're seeing a lot of distancing right off the bats, which is her denial strategy. And time has cleansed so many things. So this is what she's gone through as she's starting to have this conversation. Keep in mind, she was tricked into coming into this building and then kind of got this thing dropped on her. So we're seeing a whole lot of stress right off the beginning. Yeah. All right. Well, I'm a little bit different than you guys and what the arms mean, but we'll get that in just a second or what the flailing around the table means. But we're hearing a lot of stress.  So here she's realizing what's happening to her and the distancing we're hearing and the denial stuff that Chase is talking about. She's she's structuring her story at that point. She's she doesn't know what kind of information they have. She doesn't know how much they have. So she's staying back and she's looking at the field and seeing what's coming. And she's grabbing these parts and she's taking them over here and she's backing them off while she collects this information because that's how she's got to construct her story that works for her. That doesn't make her get in trouble with these guys, right? These and the greatest questions where he says, did you know, did you know who she was or anything? How open-ended can you get? That's that's perfect. I think that that's awesome. And so she has to say something. She's trying not to say anything when she tries, but she has to say something. This and what we're hearing when she when she hits her hand on the table, it's not an illustrator. It's it's an adapter because that's as she she has at this point she has nothing. She's really far up. She's right in the face and stuff.  We're going to see this throughout here. So think of it as an adapter, not as much an illustrator or and Mark could be right. Maybe it's a territorial thing, but I think it's an adapter because when she hits those things, she feels it and that releases some of that pent up stress or energy and she's got tons of it because she's she's not quite in a panic state yet because it's just hitting her. She's like, oh no, she's deciding. She's about to figure out what's going on with her. She opens her thing. No solid denials. She doesn't say no to anything and we hear the word think for the first time here and we'll hear throughout this because I think that's what happened. I'm not sure. Oh yeah, that that could see saving these. She's saying think so she can have room to to backpedal and go back and save herself. Oh yeah, you're right. I remember now. So she's collecting all this information. That's her goal right now is to get all the information she can so she can structure a story that goes with what they're talking about so she won't get get in as much trouble. And I think that I think they knew they they had her right out of the gate. They they had the DNA so they knew it was her. But when when this started, I think it's it all well. We got it out. I bet you the first break they took where they went out. He said, dude, we got this one. This is where this is this is simple. And I'm sure if she had listened, she could hear him giggling in the next room. That's how that's how that's how much that's how confident I think they probably were with this. And the ransom note was already written. I believe it was. I mean, it's very unusual for a ransom to be this long. From what we understand from professionals we've talked with that after someone commits such a crime as this thing, you know, get the heck out of there. We have another great case of the missing perpetrator.  And in nine out of 10 of those cases, those people don't want to talk about the one who committed it. They don't want to talk about the perpetrator who did this. And as the video starts or as this clip starts, we see some false confusion, but it's confusion for agreement. It's looking confused with my face in hopes that it becomes contagious to the other person. And when she says someone did this, not kidnapper, not murderer, not potential rapist, it's someone. And when she says such a crime as this, it's not any of the harsh words, kill or murder or whatever else we could, we could be saying. If that happens to a person's family member, there is a 99.9% chance they have no problem. And they're even very vocal about using that word to evoke emotion out of the person listening to them.  The same thing happens. Instead of saying sex, we change it to sexual relations. And when she says at the very end, get the heck out of here, she actually does with her eyes. She escapes the conversation as fast as she possibly can in hopes for a subject change. Pardon me? Are they still there? The people? What happened? What happened? Who shot who? You came home and found who shot? People that did the shooting. Let me talk to Eric. Who was the person that did the shot? My mom and dad? Hold on a second. Yeah, so let me give you a little hand about one of the ways that I go about working out where the red flags might be, how to read body language in general. I'm just looking for big changes, like what I would call significant change. Now, who decides what significant is? I do. I just think, well, that's a big difference. And there's a massive difference between, as Scott was saying, that yes, police at the start, which is kind of the way I go. Hello, Mark Bowden, expert in human behavior and body language. It's very cool. And then suddenly, as Scott said, it ramps up into what the other person on the line says is hysteria, it's hysterical. So it goes from very calm to hysterical. I would suggest that is significant. Now, what do I do when there's this moment of significant change? Because what I'm doing there is consciously trying to do what our instinct does, which our instinct is just trained to look out for significant change. Something happens in your peripheral vision, significant, you'll jump away or your eyes will be drawn towards it. Significant change in volume happens around you.  Check out what it is. What I'm doing is looking through this recording and going, where is the most significant change? And that's it for me, going from hello, police to hysteria. Now, what does it mean? I never know what it means. I just think, well, something's up there and that's what I need to investigate. That's what we need to talk about. Why are we so calm at the start? What happened during that that got you so hysterical? I want to know why the significant change happens there. That's a way of starting to ask people questions. So when you see body language, when you see non-verbal communication and you see this moment of significant change, that's the bit you want to go into. You don't know why it's happening. You're going to find out from people by just asking questions. So significant change. That's what I've got for you there. Hey, and Mark Bowden just defined baseline for you. Okay. That's perfect. She says she killed to protect herself. You say you are not a serial killer. I'm not a serial killer and I'm not a murderer. I know that when I die, I'm going to heaven and I'm going to have Jesus right beside me. And I'm going to have them on Judgement Day in front of me and they're going to pay for their wrongdoing. I am innocent. It was self-defense. The legal system didn't believe you. I do not regret it. Do not regret it.  I killed them.  I did the right thing or I wouldn't be here today. Okay. Chase, what do you got? I think her level of conviction here is very common in serial killers, but rarely in women. And we're going to talk about that a little bit later. Why women become serial killers and what the beliefs are and how they've changed since the 1970s to today. The blink rate which indicates how focused she is or how focused any person is on something that's in front of them and increasing blink rate would mean that someone's becoming stressed. Lower blink rate typically indicates focus. Her blink rate is nearly zero.  The violating that person or violating that person's trust on camera where everybody's going to see it is probably the threat that is making her become this focused. So we see her doing two things here which are common with criminals. The first one is socializing, which is this is a normal thing. Anyone would have done this in the same situation. And the second is distancing. So we see a lot of distancing language in here, but I'm just going to focus on one word. If she was the victim of a horrific crime and she's trying to tell her story, what she is clearly right here, she's using the word wrongdoing instead of the name of the crime. She doesn't use torture or hurt or rape or any of these horrific words that she could be using to help paint this picture. She uses the word wrongdoing, which we typically were more likely to see in people who are being deceptive. And I think this is a perfect example of lying versus deception versus delusion versus something that many experts might call a false memory. And I think we're going to get a little deeper into this as we go deeper into these videos, but that's all I got for this one. Do you ever met his wife? I may have. Do you remember her name or anything? Or what she did for a living or where she worked or anything about her? Well, I think she, I'm going to say that. I think she was a nurse. Man, I can't even remember how he said he met her. I mean, it's been so long ago. Well, let me ask you, did you go to their wedding? No, I didn't go to their wedding. No, I did not go to their wedding. Couldn't even tell you what year he got married. I mean, it's been a million years ago. Do you ever remember if you ever talked to her? Because it seems like a lot of you who were at the school at UCLA, you guys kind of were friends during and after school. So I'll give you a tip here from an interrogator standpoint.  They're going to tell you the more officers are in the room, the less likely your chances of confession are. I don't think so in this case. She's used to being a senior officer, and she would automatically feel superior to one person.  It's your better off to go in there and civilian clothes. But I don't think that's true in this case. One thing we're doing or that we're seeing here is a fight-or-flight response called threat tracking. And these are the rapid head turns that you're seeing in the room. When she responds to one interrogator, then back to the other one, rapidly tracking of potential threats in the room. And we see this constant eyebrow flash. When you're up trying to communicate, I'm extremely cooperative and innocent. But we see some rapid blinking, almost an eye flutter during this question response when she's starting to speak. And I think this is one of those times when that's the equivalent of you shutting off all the apps, taking up space in your phone and trying to just focus on the one thing. And when she says, I didn't go to the wedding, I think that was a truthful response. But when she says it was a million years ago, she's calling back to her strategy of time being a cleanser here. And when the interrogator asks, did you ever talk to her, there's a fear micro expression and Chen boss movement at the same time, which you very rarely see. I'm sorry, I'll speak for myself. I have very rarely seen in just about every interrogation video. And I think these exaggerated facial expressions and kind of this artificial recall is what I'll call it. They're like pretending to look down to think about something, what you see here. There are mitigation strategy that I think she has unconscious. A lot of the stuff we say when they're thinking about doing this, this and this, we're talking about unconscious processes, stuff that's not in our, within our awareness. So I think these false facial expressions are, I need to appear genuine, friendly, cooperative, and I am an expressive person. So I must be truthful. My face is all over the place. I'm expressing myself. It has to be truthful. Scott, what do you think about that? Did you tell your mother-in-law that she went to a friend's today? Yeah. Who's what friend? Who was she supposed to go to? When did she tell you that? All right, I'll go first on this one. In this one, we see him trying his best to read the room. He's trying hard because he's looking at everybody. And if you'll pay attention to that woman, which is that, which is his wife's one of his, her best friends, apparently, she knows he did it. She knows he did it just as sure as he's standing right there next to her. And when she looks at him, it's briefly, she just shoots over the looks back. She tries as hard as she can not to make eye contact with him.  And she's also, she's not quite touching the superstar in the lodge. Which is something we know that people do when they're under an enormous amount of stress or something scares them or that type of thing, especially women, but she's really close. She's got her hand on her chest. She's really close with that. My favorite person this whole video is that detective in the purple shirt because man, that is the last thing you wanted. Somebody stand that close to you. Who's the cop? Not even looking at you, not paying attention, not doing anything. He's locked onto everything happening. But it's like, at this point, he's starting to, I'm getting the giggles because he's starting to feel the threat right there. It's the cop that was right and the one that asked him the questions that are putting it on him because there's so much space in there, so much time, so much time. And his grip on himself has tightened up so much. It's starting to look almost comical when he's doing that. Now, again, look at the one that's his wife's friend. She's got disgust on her face. Look at her face a couple of times. You'll see that the expression of disgust that the upper parts of her lip, or filthrum, comes up on this side of her nose and you can see that go up a little bit. And then when he's asked him the questions, he gives a short, curt, and fading facts questions. Not a whole lot of information there, really short. And I'll leave the other stuff for you guys because there's a whole lot in here. But you'll see as his grip goes tighter, that head starts coming down, almost like you're in pre-confession at that point. His head starts going down. He's tight like this and he looks like he's thinking about it. Because a lot of times you'll see him start rocking back and forth.  He's not about to, but that sure does look like he's got that on his mind. Like I think it's too late. So he's feeling the threat. Again, his limbic system is just he's freaking out. I think at this point and he doesn't know what to do because he feels everybody in there. Look at him. She's leaning away from him and the other and the other detectives leaning away from him. Not he's not even giving him a look. Now he's looking over and just like, watch him. When we replay this, watch that detective. He's just standing there like he's waiting for something in a store or waiting for you to finish paying for something. That's how cool this guy is. And this team of cops, man, they're good. They're so good. Yeah. So I love the detective here because go back and take a look at him. The way his body is positioned, he should just fall over because his spine's twisted up his waist on one side.  And he should just fall over, but he doesn't. He's perfectly still.  In fact, when I used to work with models, we would work on poses in order to put as many twists as you could in the body because when the viewer looks at that, they think something psychological is going on. So he's kind of intriguing to look at. We see him do lip compression, which I think is withheld opinion there. He's thinking, he knows there's some complexity going on. We see that complexity in his body, but he has locked himself down because he doesn't want to give anything away. And I want you to look at him looking at what's out of the corner of his eye. He's picking up in his peripheral vision, I would say, the movement that's going on, the rhythm. Just to let you know something about the eye. You've got these cones in the center, which pick up color and definition.  And they really like to see movement. And they're looking for surprises. They're looking for something new to happen out the corner of the eye. And they pick up rhythm really, really well. That's why when you see a predator above or predator below, you're going to see it out your peripheral vision, first of all, and your brain's going to pick up a flash of movement. And if it's the right kind of rhythm, it'll trigger your fight-and-flight system and you'll jump out the way and then realize it's just a paper bag blowing in the wind.  I think he's picking up that rhythm out of the corner of his eye there. And then at the end, the officer who's talking, I want you to notice what I would call the cadence of his. So for me, musically, there's something different from rhythm and cadence or beat and cadence. For me in music, cadence is the distance between notes, rather than the rhythm or the pace or the beat of something. Listen to the notes of when did she tell you that? It goes all the way down. Instead of a question, when did she tell you that? Or a statement, when did she tell you that? Because he doesn't end on a straight cadence there, a straight, primal cadence, I suspect he doesn't believe this at all. Because if he believed it, he'd just be going, when did she tell you that? But he goes, when did she tell you that? He's not buying it at all. I think you've got three people in the room at the moment who don't buy any of this that's going on. And it's really early days, because I think the act, the crime was done just that morning. He's already dealt with the bodies, and now he's into this. I don't think he expected it to escalate this quickly. And I think it's showing up badly for him. He's panicked right from moment one, and people can see it, they can smell it, they can taste it. It's heavy and prescient in the room. He was arrested two days after he murdered his family. Right. So, Mark, you said you work with models. Did you work with Chase on his Vogue shoot? I will never give you the names of any of my clients. So I just can't answer. It's a what? It's a non-disclosure deal. But as to this specific phone call when you first made contact with the police, did you plan out what you were going to say to them? No. And I really don't remember exactly what I said other than reading this, but I know that I wasn't going to say that we were involved. Great stuff. I totally agree. There's a severe lack of emotion here. You see that there's no emotion on the face, which I'm going to talk about in just a couple of videos. I'm going to explain exactly what I think is going on without making a diagnosis. And I think the way that he pauses, when people say he paused, you know, this guy's being deceptive, this I think this pause was a display of deference to the opposing counsel for the interruption that had happened there for him saying right. And then he paused a little bit longer than he normally would. And that's what I think that was. This is mostly truthful. Scores A6 on the behavioral table of elements. This is the, I think the lowest score. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I saw truthful, too. I mean, he's got low blink rate. Here's the problem, guys. It's not like they're trying to hide. They premeditatedly murdered their parents with shotguns. So he's casually talking about a 911 call, of course.  There's a lot of horrific stuff going on, not the least of which is murdering your parents with a shotgun. I mean, I was talking to somebody earlier, I was talking to Eric and he said, you know, it's not easy to go and call your brother and say, hey, what are you doing Friday night?  And they just admitted among the most horrific things on earth to murdering their parents in premeditated fashion, going out buying shotguns with the intent. So he's not trying to hide the fact he called 911 and he didn't tell the truth. So there's no pressure. That's what we're seeing is low pressure. Even though it's a cross, even there on him, you see pretty good eye contact, not a high blink rate, open. The one thing that I would say is either raise your hands or sit on your hands, but don't do both because you get that false shrug because he's sitting on his hands and his arms would want to move. So his illustrators illustrating his points and thoughts are not there, but he certainly has good eye contact. He certainly looks like he's being honest and like you chase. I don't have your BTOE in front of me, but I would say the same thing. Low, low, low deception. Then Warno says she turned the table. He untied her. She got her gun and shot him four times. Well, let me ask you, in your opinion, did Richard Mallory deserve to die? Okay. For what he did to me, the way he tortured me and everything, yes, yes, he did. But how can I explain this? Yes, he did deserve to die, but the way I left him was so kind because the way he was going to leave me, I'm sure would not have been this way. He would have left me probably dismembered, scattered out in the woods. So you feel I left him with a rug over him so the vultures wouldn't get him. But you left him dead. That's right. Yeah, there's some larger head movement here while she's talking. There's more head movement, which is kind of a sales pitch here. Wanting some agreement. There's some lip licking going on here, which many would tell you is deceptive in its own, but we're looking for changes in behavior. We're looking for clusters of things that are unusual. And I agree, Mark, completely that there is a new narrative here that if I would have killed you, but then I stuck an ice cream cone in your hand, that's a whole different deal. That makes me a better person than Jeffrey Dahmer because I did the ice cream cone thing. He'd never did that. He cut people up. So there's a different level. And I think that's a different way that this person's seeing the world. And when people suffer abuse at a young age, they get very good from a psychological perspective at something called dissociation. And people, this is not a negative thing. People in the military are very good at this. People who are Olympic athletes are very good at dissociating from discomfort during training. But as a child going through these traumatic experiences, this dissociative process becomes a habit.  Anything stressful happening to me, I can retreat into a place where I am separated from my normal self. And this normal self doesn't have to feel pain, guilt, shame, regret, or anything like that, or disgust about something that the other me is participating in. And I think that this is what we're seeing right here. We're starting to see the illustration of her dissociative process at work here. And now I'd like you to notice in this video, when we play this again, she's now using her left side to present positive information. She's talking about the rug and being rolled up in the rug and how what she did versus what he would have done to her. So if I'm seeing somebody always gesture one way to talk about negative things, and they look over here and they're gesturing this way when they're talking about how good they are or something that they enjoyed as the interrogator, I'm going to scoot over into the positive direction when I'm going to start talking to them about confessing. I'm going to lean that direction when I'm preparing to get them to confess to something. But that's it. So take note of that. If somebody looks or gestures a certain way when they're talking about negative stuff, you want to start scooting or leaning over in the opposite direction of that when you want to persuade them to do something, especially something that's not in their best interests, like confessing to a crime. Good luck out, Mrs. Ramsey. Your child's been killed brutally, and then someone writes out this way and says no. Why do you think that that's not feasible? Why do you think it was written before? Because I have been told by people who are experienced in this field that that is usually the way it happens. I have no previous knowledge about these kind of things, but we have been in conversation. We think about this every day. Every day. And we've sought out the top people in the field that know about how the criminal line works. And this is what we're going on. The profile that's in the book, all that information is not from John and from me. This is from people that know what they're doing. All right, Chase, what do you got? If you're watching this, do me the biggest favor of all time and watch this clip and only listen to her responses and see if somebody offered you a million dollars to figure out what she's talking about if you could figure it out. This is the most generalized, un-non-specific, non-committal answer I've ever heard in any interview, I think in my lifetime. It's those people, these people, these techniques, this agency, those agencies, these people, all arguments are arguments from authority or an argument on authority. So if you told me, oh, I think she's on drugs and my response would be, oh, where did you graduate pharmacology school? That's the argument of authority. And what they're doing is something called borrowing authority. So I am borrowing the authority of another agency or another group of people in order to make my story more believable or more palatable for people to like me more, which certainly lead to maybe an innocent claim at the end, but it would certainly lead to where I want somebody to start believing I'm going to wind up. Greg. Yeah, what you call borrowing authority, I call authority by association. And she doesn't just borrow it, she paid for it. She tells you, we have the experts. There's a status claim here and there's a resume statement of sorts there. I would say I paid for this expertise and I know. So I agree with you. There's that certainly up front. She swallows really hard at the beginning of this. Did you all see that? Just awkward. Now it's probably from the question before, but it's still there. She smiles awkwardly in the middle of this thing. I don't get that of all the things. It's kind of that condescending spot. Some of this is her baseline of snarkiness. I mean, it's just how she's wired, I think, but she is in the middle of a rambling to your point. I mean, there are not many questions and answers that are quite this messy, but she's rambling and running off into the quicksand and he rescues her. You see that when she said we. She has a word pattern about this every day. She has a word pattern shift that says we have been. And she's not said that up to now. Any weird word pattern like that. Not just non-committal, not just rambling, but it's a weird word pattern for her. Remember, she was a beauty queen. She was a pageant person. And presentation is everything to your point earlier. Even if you don't answer a question, you probably have a long, rhythmic process to it. So I would say, what are you talking about here?  And I'd get what she's got.  During that time that you were seeing John, you know, was he acting kind of, kind of squirrely or kind of sneaking around when he'd hook up with you or anything like that to make you think, hey, you made it. He probably was.  Well, let's see. From what? I met him in 78. No, I met him in school. I started UCLA in 78. So you know him well during that period of time. Yeah. I mean, was he acting squirrely? You know, I don't even remember where he was living then. You know, I. Okay. Chase, what do you got? So we see a chin boss movement and eyebrow flash to the extremes here combined. So weird. And it's that duality that you guys have been talking about the whole time. There's gross turtling movement, like a large gross movement. She instantly recalls the year that she met him. And some people might say, well, this is, you know, she has no trouble recalling the past, but it's also the year she started college. So I would discount that as some, some big data point. But she went from how he was acting to where he was living. For no reason. And this is a mitigation strategy that, that psychologists refer to as terror management theory. This is when we have an awareness of a potential catastrophic in injury that causes some unusual behavior for us as humans and some heightens our anxiety a whole lot. But within this, very quickly, we have a repetition of question, which is a four on the behavioral table of elements, a non answer statement, which is a four, a confirmation glance twice to both interrogators after the statement, not before, but after she made a statement, which is an eight and then ambiguity, which is another four. So she gets a score of 20 when 11 is a high chance of deception. So she's well into the ballpark there. She knows the guy was sneaking around. She knows that the other person didn't know. And I think we're seeing in the difference in facial tone there, Mark, as we can watch that difference at this point, it's noted as we go along, she flushes more and more. And at one point it's just plain flushing like you're talking about. But I think at this point, she's growing angry. And this type of personality, that's what happens to them. They get mad. They get all red faced. And if you look at her eyes, when someone's angry and they do the squint and I'm mad at you, that's one thing. When they look at that, but when you see those eyes, when you see the whites of their eyes, when they're acting angry, they're not acting. They're angry. She's angry at this point. And we're seeing, like Chase was saying earlier, when they ask you that question, her chin goes down and totally covers her neck. She's holding back information. She's a lot of stuff she wants to say and she wants to go off, but she can't because this is one of those times she can't because she's in trouble. And she's in an interrogation room and she's got to try to be cool and she's not pulling it off. That's what she's trying to do. So I think that's what a lot of the red faces is about, is from being angry.  She's used her whole life when she gets in this spot and she's been in it a thousand times where she's trying to defend herself for something she's done from her anger. And that's, and so she's used to being here. And so her eyes glazed over and she just drops back into that and the animal part of her starts taking over and she just starts yapping at that point. Well, all these things she's telling these guys at that point.  And we're seeing her get mad and we're seeing all these expressions of all these feelings that we're talking about these emotions we're talking about coming out on her face in blended expressions. Like Greg was saying, we're seeing, we're seeing, and Mark is saying, shoot, we all said it. We're seeing anger, happiness and frustration all blended together. Be happiness up here and anger down here, then anger up here or surprise up here and anger down here, all of these different things. That tells you a lot about a personality like that. That's why she's getting so mad. That's how she ended up killing that girl because she was mad. And she may not have gone over there to kill her, but I'll bet that's what ended up, especially if she ended up biting her because they had that DNA there that they talked about later on. So there was a big fight going on there too. And I bet you she went back out to the car and got that thing and tagged her, came back in the house and tagged her. I don't know what the details of it are, but I'll bet you that's what happened. I'll stop right there. Do you remember your earliest recollection of being frightened by one of your parents? Which parent? Your father? Yes. And what were the circumstances of this earliest memory of being frightened by your father? I was swimming. Do you remember where you were swimming? I was swimming at the, I believe it was called Ramapo. I'm not quite sure of the name. It was a lap pool. And what happened? Well, when I was in Muncie, I couldn't quite swim the 25-yard pool without breathing. And he wanted me to do it straight without breathing because that way you swim faster. And I couldn't do it. So he would train me to do it without breathing. And how would you do that? By grabbing my hair and dunking me under the water and then lifting me up and dunking me under the water again. Okay, Chase, what do you got? I think this is truthful. We have emotional recall right at the question. There's body narration. He's moving his hands. He's illustrating as Scott will put it. There's eyebrow flash, which I think is, I think both of them showing this eyebrow flash is trained submission or conditioned submission, especially to someone who is in a position of authority, like an attorney, a doctor, those types of people. So they, I'll talk about it in a second, but the suggestibility of an adult who was abused as a child is way increased. And it's his memory of the event. This brings the behaviors to the present moment. And this technique, what asking about these events brings the memories into the present. So the chemicals that were there, the feelings that were there are still very palpable and they're easier to bring in. And this is a technique a lot of times that attorneys can use on the stand to get someone in a vulnerable state by asking questions about something completely different. And then asking something challenging because I've accessed that vulnerable state first. And so this brings that up. And he used the word trained instead of abused. He never said abused. He used the word trained, which I think speaks to his dysfunctional upbringing and how he was taught to view the world as this is natural, this is normal, and this is something that everybody else endures. Mostly truthful behavior here. Scott? Yeah, I'm going to agree with you. I'm seeing all of this. We're seeing the same stuff. His illness stairs are good. He's loping along. Just telling that like he's, you know, like it could happen this morning. However, we do see an adapter when he says, when he talks about, I couldn't do it. We see him go like that. And when he says he couldn't do it, I think he's reliving that moment. Then when his dad held him underwater and he saw it coming, he's like, I can't do it. And he's going to get, I think he was worried about it all the way up to that point where he grabbed and stick him under. This is a violent thing that's going on here. This isn't just something where he would grab, he'd hold me into it. The kids flailing around, probably screaming, making noise. Apparently, nobody else is around. It's just he and his father or his brother and his mother to do that and let that happen without running over there. Are you guys going to be able to let that happen out right over there? And you know what? That's going to be tough, man. So I think he's reliving that. That's what we're seeing, that little grimace he's got, as he, again, biting down on his mouth, on his bottom lip. And then when he's illustrating those moves of his father doing it, all these things are very smooth. Everything he's going along is very smooth. Nothing is, he's not stopping and it's all jerky and short little words and separated. Everything's just flowing right along there. His cadence, in other words, as Greg always relates to it as or talks about it as. Everything's just fine. Going along there.  I think this guy got so far in their heads from since they were little, he's ruined them up to this point. You know, they don't know what's normal behavior, I think. So for him, that could have been happened to everybody. You know, it wouldn't have bothered him. If you said it happens, my dad did the same thing and said, yeah, that's terrible, isn't it? He wouldn't go, what are you kidding me? Because to him, that's normal. And to us, you know, most people, that that kind of behavior isn't normal. So yeah, we're seeing the same kind of stuff there. I think my husband's been shot. My house has been burglarized. I just watched him. I don't, I've been appalled upon him. I just came in from the deer. All right. Greg, you want to go first? Yeah, I'd love to go first on this one. So I, we cover this one in the True Crime Workshop at truecrimeworkshop.com at thetruecrimeworkshop.com. This is a great example of a person trying to tell a story when they call 911.  But when a person calls 911, they want help. They're trying to solve a problem. They're not starting their alibi. She's starting her alibi. She's starting to tell a story. Listen to the consistency. People are panicked. I'll say this. I once had a really bad horse accident. My wife could barely finish the call to get a helicopter here to pick me up. And in fact, she, she, her native language is Greek and she was shifting back and forth in languages. And this is not a panicked woman. It's not in her nature. When you're calling for somebody you love, you're certainly going to be even more panicked because you're more engaged. Listen to the story. She's going to tell you a story in this and it's going to sound outlandish. Then go listen to a real call where somebody's calling for help for someone they love and listen to the effect of fight or flight on their brain. As they turn into a cat, they respond. They answer questions. They ask for help. They ask for help. They ask for help. They ask for help. They don't tell you what color shoes they're wearing or what they were doing before they found them. That's storytelling. Mark, what do you get? Yeah. So this is, this is kind of like burying the lead. You know, why not just open with, look, before I ask for help, I'd just like you to know, just came in from the gym. Because, you know, that might be some vital information that you need. And the responder would go, oh, thank you for telling me that because what you want to do is get some of that gym equipment and it's like, no. Like nobody needs to know that you've just come in from the gym. Well, yeah. You might want them to know if you wanted to lay the alibi down on tape right from moment one. And again, this for me kind of signals something of the intelligence going on here. The forethought that might be going into this that somebody might go, you know what, if I make a first responder call, maybe lay down my alibi right from moment one. There is no logical reason why you need to say that you've come in from the gym. I can't think of a psychological one either where it would be resonant that you came in.  It's just plain odd and a huge red flag. I'll leave it at that. Let me add one comment. Go back to the first video and listen to what she says.  And I found my husband in a pool of blood.  Pay attention to these 911 calls. Does anybody hear her talking about blood? Wait, throughout this video, these clips were playing. Listen for her to talk about blood. The first time you see someone shot and there's a lot of blood, it's a lot of blood, especially if you've been shot five times. And it leaves an impression. For me, if that was the number one thing that she noticed, there's more blood than she's ever seen, I would expect that to come up in a frantic 911 call. Just do. And then she left Arizona on Friday and got back last night. And she had the kids with her last night? Yes. How did you have the kids? Oh, I had the kids like all weekend. Okay. They went to a birthday party yesterday. And then someone's sleeping in the basement? I did a three times the separation thing. How recently? Probably about two nights ago, three nights ago, when she was here. So by last time on Thursday night, Friday. And then your kids, do they sleep in their own beds? Or do they sleep with you? Those two adjacent rooms, they connected that bathroom. You're lucky. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah. So one of my favorites and Chase, this ties back to something you were talking about earlier about apprehension and quick movement. He does something I would call robo-copping. His head turns and then body. It's almost like a really bad science fiction thing. He goes back to that. His voice is frying, which we all know is, oh, she's got the voice fry. He starts to BS. He starts to make up something about when he slept in the basement. And this is, I got his baseline. I'm all over his eye movement because then he goes to fact and he goes up and remembers when she was last home. So now I've got an accessing cue for his visuals and what he puts facts together. When I'm talking to this guy in the interrogation room, I'm going to get him to deviate and go to the right side and go, okay, now I got something. So what we're doing is establishing a baseline. This guy's, he's a squirrel on the road. He doesn't know what to do at this point. You can hear him breathing. You hear Chase's hand slaps. His mouth actually is hanging open at this point, not just from breathing heavily, but when people are apprehensive, there's that in him. It's amazing to see. You don't see that very often. And then they give him the opportunity and there's the chaff and redirect. The birthday party down the road, Tuesday. It's just, he's all over the place. I don't know how he could think he had a chance. And guys, we're big fans of these guys. This is Weld County, Weld County, Colorado. We're big fans of you guys as police officers. You got to, you got our thumbs up from this end. I'm going to, I'm going to read you what happens in the first 10 seconds. All right. From the behavioral table of benefits. Not my discoveries, but my creation. Rocking back and forth, hands concealed, eyebrow flash, increased blink rate to 66, mouth open, and hyperventilation. He would have scored a 31. But then being deception, he would have scored a 31 in the first 10 seconds. And his head nodding lingers on after he finishes talking because the officer's not providing him any nonverbal feedback. I've seen this so rarely, but I see it mostly in children who are being questioned. And this is insane.  But these guys did an excellent job of yanking that out of him and getting him to display a lot of these things. Because a lot of what he's doing is, is attributable to the behavior of the police in the room. And he's overselling, over-delivering. And it's not necessarily deceptive. This is kind of a submissive behavior. Right? Right, guys? So I'm just... You just did it, yeah. Yeah, I'm just gonna pull it. I just did it.  And you can see it again. His head rapidly turns to address the officer as soon as he starts speaking. More overly relaxed. And the police officer says, you're lucky, everyone. When you watch this again, listen, the officer says, you're lucky. He is so far, he's running a program right now called Protect Myself that is taking up so much of his computer's hardware in his head that the program for how to talk to humans isn't running. It's not capable of running. So what we're seeing is him just kind of staring and trying to maybe process that, but it's almost like it didn't get absorbed at all. He didn't hear it. Because that statement didn't threaten him.  And he didn't understand the statement. That is a remarkable thing here. Let me ask, when you were seeing John, would you... I think if you would pick you up in his car, you'd go in your car, things of that nature, when you guys would go out? Yeah, I mean... Do you remember what he drove? Well, I know at one time he drove either a 240 or a 260Z. Any other cars that stand out in your mind? I don't know how long you drove that 240 or 260Z for. And the only reason I say that is, because I think I may have a picture of it with him in it. What kind of car did you have back then? Let's see. What year? Or are you like one of those young cops that like, oh, I got a paycheck and bought a new car? Oh, no, no, no. I've only had like a few cars in my whole life. So what did you have when you came on the job? Okay, well my first car was a 68 Chevelle. Why didn't all that, though, is what I'm thinking.  She's like, why asking this? Look at her face. Why asking that? She knows where they're headed, but she can't figure out this is a transition move, I don't think. And you guys may see something else, but to me, this looks, I'll just go ahead and do my piece then. She goes to romance her. She locks eyes from the Liars Loop from the true crime workshop we did. Her blink rate goes up. And then they make a supposition, and she's kind of shocked by it. She does a goofy face. And then she starts all that lip movement stuff. And when people are thinking, we move our mouths, some of us more demonstrably than others. I think all they're doing is transitioning into, did you ever lose a car? Did you ever lose a firearm? But she can't see it. And I think she's got confusion and she's doing whatever that craziness is. That's all I see. This first time we've seen this lip thing, I think if I'm a police interrogator and I'm being interrogated, I'm trying to figure out what's coming next.  What's next? And then she goes back to, she was going to hit that anchor. Well, I remember his car, I got a picture of him in the car. She tries the anchor again, anchor and redirect. They don't let her have it. Now she's got to answer the question. She just jumps tracks and answers whatever she wants to. That's what I see. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I mean, it's hard for me to watch anything because there's a moment in there which is one of the most bizarre facial expressions movements I've ever seen in my life on this show. Outside of Jim Carrey doing the Grinch that stole Christmas. That is Jim Carrey doing the Grinch who stole Christmas. It's the same thing. I would love to put that in the show but we get held in copyright prison for too long on that. So just go and search that out and make up a meme and stick it out there for us. It is rather like, it's like Jim Carrey doing Andy Kaufman doing Tony Clifton as well. It's the same, it's the same. She's doing, what she's doing is she's doing, she's trying to entertain, I think, at this point the interrogators by going, I know what I'll do. I'll do my impersonation of Jim Carrey doing Andy Kaufman doing Tony Clifton. That's what she does. I don't know what else is going on in this clip because I couldn't pay attention to it. I could only focus on that. Chase, is there anything else going on in this clip at all? I think that's good.  I mean now prosecutors and cops and that you killed seven men. That you killed those men in cold blood. Yeah, and I got to come clean that I killed those seven men in first degree murder and robbery. As they said, they had it right. A serial killer. Not so much like a thrill kill. I was into the robin biz.  I was into the robbing, just to eliminate a witness. But still then again, I got a number. So it's a serial killer. But I'm coming clean before I go in that execution chamber and be executed. That I killed them.  I pretty much, I have pretty much had them selected that they were going to die. There's this licking lips right before she pronounced serial killer was a big data point for me. And I thought that this was going to be a thing until I started watching the rest. The other videos that we're going to talk about in a minute. So I do think the dry mouth plays a part. I think I read a report by the Department of Justice recently that over the last 20 years, Trasadone is the most commonly prescribed drug in American correctional facilities. Don't quote me on that. I think that was in the last 20 years. And when she says coming clean, there's a little grief muscle. It's very, very tiny. I had to zoom.   This is when we see some activity here. There's lip licking, which could be dry mouth, lip retraction. There's lip compression. Then there's chin boss movement here. For the first time, we see a little bit of what could be shame or guilt. And this is the muscle we know and that a lot of peer reviewed research by people way smarter than me have proven that this is a common muscle used in shame and guilt. I think it's very interesting towards the end here.  She selects the people. This implies power, control, and choice, which are, like I said a few videos ago, these are all the things, our control and choice, all the things that she lacked in her childhood. And now she's been able to reestablish that by selecting who was going to die before they did. Like I said, we were looking at the case and we had read the notes as far as from Sherry's friend saying you guys had problems or words and they got heated. You know, the reason we're asking you is they had mentioned that an incident at her work had occurred and they've also told us that an incident at her house occurred. You know what? And this is at her house during the period of time that they're married. That's just not sound familiar at all.  That's just not, again, if someone says that I was at her house and I had an incident with her, you know, I, that just doesn't sound, you know, was John there? Did John say this happened? Because, and other people were there, I just, I don't recall. I mean, it just doesn't sound, you know, familiar. Chase, what do you got? We see, we see a lot going on here that didn't happen versus that doesn't sound familiar. There's just, this is just the same exact thing she's been doing the whole time. That doesn't sound familiar, which is common in police who are also guilty suspects. Training interrogation, because that is very hard for an interrogator to do anything about. And it sounds great in the deposition after you're going through the trial process, going through the deposition. Did you say such and such on this date to the interrogator? You say, no, I said, I don't recall. Show me the transcript. It says I don't recall. And remember it doesn't sound familiar. So it's just kind of like this case body armor. It's deposition body armor is kind of what she's planning for here at this point. We see another postural retreat here. She's leaning back in her chair. So now she's getting into this more desperate information seeking behavior and dropping information with repetitive confirmation glasses to see if someone's going to nod. Someone's going to say, oh yeah, such and such said this or it's from a written statement from a neighbor. And this is where maybe a bait question could come in or we could throw in something with an incorrect detail. So like, well, is there any reason one of the neighbors would say that you were holding a baseball bat? And that's a little bit extreme. Was there any reason the neighbors would have said you punched Sherry in the face during this interaction? She's like, no, no, that didn't happen. So you want them to have, you want to trigger their need to correct the record as much as possible. And you only want to do that when they're in the extreme mindset of saving face. So you see extreme face saving behavior. You trigger the need to correct the record with one of those false information questions. Not a leading question, kind of a bait question. Yeah, same thing. Compare her. First of all, compare her posture here, that wall plate behind her. Go back and look at video one. Her head is fully below that. Now you can see the plate up above her head. She's way below it. And if you notice, she has real eye lock and no facial expression, except for that quick nod when he's talking about having words with you, Mark. That means something. And then she is just in a place. She raises forward and then she figuratively, and I think also internally, she literally, and I think also figuratively, just kind of slumps back in her chair. I think that's the beginning of the end for her. And she's drowning.  She does what she knows best. I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. She knows that's worked a million times. If you go back and watch the entire video of this thing, you'll see this guy do an artful thing later where he starts to say, would you recall that as a police officer? Yes, I would. And he gets her into some cognitive dissonance about why she doesn't recall about something like that happened. But I think she here is at the end of her rope. And I think it's over. It's just a matter of how long it takes to close. And what was the conversation this morning you guys had? It was about selling the house in separation. And how'd she take that? We were both pretty emotional. Both crying. And then did you see her before you went to work? Did you say anything to her?  Take kids with her. Oh, she told you she was taking the kids to your friend's house. She didn't say, hey, though. Oh, no, no. No, but she was still in bed when that happened. And this was after the conversation? Yeah. It was between, like, 4 or 5 a.m. I woke up about 4 o'clock. What time did she get home? 1.48. So did you get to sleep for a little while? And then? Oh, yeah. Like, I was passed out when she got home. And then did you wake her up? Yeah, when I got up. And that's when you discussed that issue? I didn't want to do it, like, over a text or over a phone call. I wanted to be face-to-face with her. How long did that conversation last? I left 30, 45 minutes. And then you went to work? I left about 5.15, 5.30 in that time frame. And she said she was going to her friend's house with kids? But she was still here when I left. We have some chained elephant stuff going on here. But I think he stops recalling his story because it's taxing. Everything that's going on is taxing his mental resources right here. And again, watch how fast his head snaps to the other officer when the other officer starts asking him a question. That's another key factor in human trafficking victims, when they're being interviewed, is this fear submission to authority figures who could potentially hurt them or discover that they're in the country illegally, stuff like that. And for police, doing these interviews, taking the entire thing as a mosaic, and was the focus of that person on their innocence and their story, or was it on finding their family or getting help or solving the case, figuring things out and getting data to the surface? So as a mosaic, this entire thing is about his innocence. There's nothing else. And every question that he answers, the data inside of it has nothing to do with finding them, locating them, or even concern for them. He hasn't even mentioned their names throughout this entire thing, which is a distancing all on its own. And when he says she was still here when I left, I think what he should have said was they were still here when I left. And I think that's an important, let's just call it a mispronown. I don't know the word for it. Greg? Yeah, so a couple of things. I'm going to hit a few that you've already hit.  He's swaying and then head bobbles. Something happened. I think that's the moment of the act. I agree with you. The 911 call, we typically think of 911 calls. Scott and I referenced this in the true crime workshop. There's a thing called the caller is the killer. If a person doesn't tell you they need help, if they're not about getting a solution, if they're telling you a story that later becomes an alibi, often they're the killer. I think the number was 28% of the time, that if you didn't do this, they were the killer. That's number one. Number two, I'm going to tell you something you probably can't even believe because you've never seen it.  It will. Your brain, and I've seen it many times, I've talked to stress lab folks at Emory, and they said, we theorize that we've never seen it, but I have seen it. You crank up the heat so much on a person that their brain, through all the chemicals and everything it drops in starts to say, I can't take any more of this and backs out. And when it does, a person's hands draw and they ball up in the floor. It happens. I've seen it, caused it myself in real life once, and then learned to see it coming and stopped. But if that's possible, this guy is one of the people I've seen who is getting close. A little more pressure and a pointing at him and telling him would probably indicate that he would go into that next phase. And I think it's called adrenal fatigue. One of you guys who is a scientist down below, tell me what I got wrong there. But I've seen it. I know it works. This guy's trying to start, and I think you hit it dead on Chase. He's not trying.  He's trying to control, release whatever story he has and trying to get the information out. He does it. Now some basic body language. He does it when he says she was here when I left. So look at that. This is again where he's got all those numbers that are jumbled. Some are very distinct. This is the point I was talking about earlier if you go back and listen. 1.48, this happened. 4 or 5, 30 to 45 minutes. He's got requests for approval in there. His brain is frying circuits right now. He's trying to figure out what to do next. And we'll see him later. If you go back now, go back and watch the video that we did two weeks ago of him standing on the front porch. That's after this. Go watch. Now you'll understand all the squirming and doing this. So watch them in succession. You'll see something very different. He's in trouble. He's in real trouble right here. All right. Well, that's it. Go ahead and fellas and I'll see you next time. Subscribe. Yeah. Be sure and I forget every time. Be sure and subscribe.


The 10-year right now is at 4.02 folks and just to remind you October 27th we're at 5.01 and this thing is on its way to 3.4 to 3.2 and I suspect we're going to be at 3s by tomorrow, pretty wild man. The King Dollar, King Dollar they're taking to the cleaners down 953 ticks, 102.912 Euro at 108, the end trading at 143 British pound at 126 to 1 US dollar. We get over and take a look at the S&P first, bottom line folks is that you have the spy, we're trading right now at 4.70 and your high is 4.79, so you're nine bucks away from it, you've got a monster expansion of volume up here, 84 million shares out here, let's put this on a weekly, this is going to be another ABC up man, it's just blowing everything away man, yeah. So anyway it's going for the highs and then we take a look at the Qs, it's Wednesday, so you know it's so cool too, it's option expiration too this week man, so this is going to be really wild, the Qs, look at the volume coming in the Qs, the Qs we're at 403, 409 as the number I believe, 408.72, 408.72, so we're up five bucks, one more day like today, the Qs are at all time highs, huge volume, 51 million shares traded, we go take a look at the 10 year, you're going to see, you get the wide price spread, you took out a B point, you took it out with volume, ABCs are going to be all over the place up folks okay, so right here take a look at that 10 year, bingo, took it out, took it out with volume, that's, we're at 111.31, that's a 114 to 115, a 114 to 115 price folks is 3.73 and right into 3.73 is a 3.23, that's where I think we're going, 3.23 is the bottom of it and a king dollar, king dollar got smoked, have a great night folks, have a safe night, come back and visit Tommy tomorrow morning, kicks us off 9 a.m., great show folks. Currencies, commodities and


What's up everybody? Jason here for jasperjasmereys.com. We sold out another random number blog to potentially get a random hit in 1819 Penini flawless basketball random hit number 16 So this was a little bit tricky But the way this is guys is that you are buying a share into a random hit in flawless basketball Random hit number 16. So somebody is gonna get a hit. So what we do is that once we sell out the spots instead of having a customer name Tied with a hit. It's gonna be random number block three. So as an example, we have him here. So These are the examples here. So if John bought a spot He's guaranteed card one card two, etc. Etc. But for random number block, let's say this was number three, right? To you guys here it matched up with so-and-so and it was number 13 out of 25 That means we'd have to go to the random number block list and see who has spot three So as an example of orange had spot three, he would be the winner of the card You got a one in 10 shot with the random number blocks So you are guaranteed a chance at a hit one person will definitely get something out of here And it can potentially be a Luca like this So let's get it going guys. Good luck. Here's a dice roller and as I added bonus to guys I've got to say we're only selling eight spots meaning that we're gonna give away Two free spots in this RMB to increase your chances of potentially winning a hit So the dice really here will be for the customer names to see who gets the top two We'll paste in the top two names here to make it a full 10 Then we'll use the same dice ruler randomized customer names and the numbers zero through nine and we'll see what you guys match up with Guys, so good luck roll it two and a four six top two get an extra free spot one two three four five and six Bo Rudy and Chad Coleman. Congratulations. Bo nice Yeah, so Rudy here we go and Chad you got an extra free spot now. We're gonna go six times now one two three four five six Boom six six Demetrius down to Chad six times one two three four five six Boom six Six zero down to nine boom Let's see what you guys got So to be true as you got zero and eight Chad look at that your free spot I just bought one anyone who wants to be yours Alan with three will with four to be chosen to Rudy with five Will seven Rudy with six and Chad you have nine so there you go guys So again, once we do sell out the next two fillers we can unlock this break potentially do it tonight Jasper's case breaks.com appreciate it guys


This is what many believers don't understand about the power of the Holy Spirit. They're constantly begging for more of the Holy Spirit, not realizing that everything the Holy Spirit is, He dwells in you.  When you were born again, the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you. It's the same Holy Spirit.


So this is joint work with George V.C.S. who's also at UMass Amherst, and this talk has really been motivated by a lot of the challenges that have been discussed in talks that have happened earlier at this conference. So just to take a subset of some of the long-term engineering challenges that have been brought up, these include, that motivate Bob Tell, this includes an accurate difficulty adjustment, right, because if we can't adjust difficulty correctly all the time, there's gonna be this uneven spacing of blocks, and uneven spacing of blocks is gonna hinder adoption in the sense of, it's gonna give this, I don't know, sheen of unreliability to the Bitcoin Cash Network. So we've also heard talks on zero confirmation, or certainly related to that is a low delay in confirmation, and low delay is gonna happen because you're waiting too long for the next block to come, or maybe you're waiting for a lot of blocks to come, you're waiting for six blocks to come before you're really sure about this confirmation being valid, and that all relates to the double spend attack. So in general, we also really just want a reliable, smooth transaction throughput, and a lot of the talks here have been about increasing the size of the blocks, right, and even if you got to a terabyte block that wouldn't help you with the interblock time, right, if you suddenly have to wait 30 minutes for the next block to come, who cares that it's a terabyte, you're still waiting for that block to arrive, okay, so all of this, although it hasn't been talked much at the conference yet, this is also related, it turns out, to resilience against denial of service attacks, and by that I really only mean selfish mining and eclipse attacks, okay, and so the thing is that even if conditions are perfect, and perhaps even optimistically so that maybe the mining power isn't changing at all, it's still the case that about seven times a day there's gonna be, say, 30 minutes or more between blocks, that's the ideal of nothing's even under attack, and these six block wait times are standard, so this is all related to what I'm gonna talk to you about today. The other motivation for talking about Bobtail, which I haven't even described yet, is some of the medium term planning that's been going on in Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC and others, so for example, it's not the use of Bobtail, but rather just the evaluation of Bobtail is under consideration by Bitcoin Unlimited to reduce interblock time variance, increase double spend resistance, improve DDA, and achieve better mining, so similarly, again, not Bobtail, but Bitcoin ABC has talked about improving difficulty adjustment, and so Bobtail itself is not a difficulty adjustment algorithm, but it improves the performance of any difficulty adjustment algorithm because if interblock time variance is low, if there's an even spacing between blocks, difficulty adjustment is easy, right? Okay, so actually, I also just wanna go back and take a moment to say I'm also part of the set of co-authors that are involved in Graphene, and just to tell you, we have a pull request out for Graphene. I'm not gonna talk about it today, but it's a complete working version and it has a unit and end-to-end test that pass Graphene blocks between locally running instances. What remains to be done in our pull request is really it's George's pull request, is performance tuning and test net deployment, but we're getting there, so I'll talk about that maybe at the next conference. Okay, so in this talk, I'm gonna remind you of how Bobtail operates or maybe even introduce it to you if you've never seen it before. I'm gonna quantify some of its improvements to Bitcoin Cash, theoretically, and then I'm gonna tell you about new developments that we've had with Bobtail and tell you some of the next steps that we have planned. So, why is there variance between blocks in Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, anything that does proof of work mining? That's, it's because of proof of work mining. So, all of the miners, what they're all doing is taking a header, putting the knots in there, and then taking the hash of it. And that hash is really sampling a number at random between zero and two to the 256 minus one. And so, we all know, right, that the first miner to get lucky and find a sample below the target value wins. So, here's some samples, nothing's really working out until A is the one that gets lucky and they win the block. So, sometimes a miner will get lucky and that's when the blocks come early. And sometimes everyone collectively is unlucky and that's when the blocks come late. Okay, and so, this is a statistical phenomenon. This is the distribution of how often blocks come. And you can see at the bottom, I have the scale for Bitcoin. It's literally the same distribution for Ethereum. You just have to rewrite the scale at the top. It's like Celsius and Fahrenheit. So, 30 or, yeah, 5% of the time, it's at least 30 minutes between blocks. And they're sort of like a middle waste, right, between 80% of the time, it's between one and 23 minutes. So, one thing I want you to take away from this talk, as I sort of alluded to before, is that the size of the block is kind of analogous to network bandwidth, right? If you want to get more throughput between Tokyo and San Francisco, then lay down more fiber. If you want to get more transactions, then make the block size bigger. But that doesn't change the speed of light, the fiber, right, you still have a propagation delay. And so, the analogy isn't quite perfect because I'm really talking about the variance in delay or delay jitter, sometimes it's called. But that's the parameter that I want to talk about in this talk. It's not making the blocks bigger, it's not gonna fix the delay or the delay variance, it's adjusting a different parameter in Bitcoin. So, I'm not gonna go into it in this talk, but if you look at a talk online from Bitcoin Scaling, I explained why high variance is actually the cause of, or at least the exacerbator, of double spend and selfish mining attacks, okay? So, how do you reduce this interblock variance? So, in Bobtail, this is what we do. If you think about Bitcoin today, I want you to think of it as we take samples, we ask the miners for headers whose hash is below a target and we take the first one and only one. And you can average a single number, right? It's just that number. So, what if you were to average instead K samples and if that average was below a target, that would still be in line with the same sort of proof of work mining behavior. So, let's say that K equals four. What we would do is adjust the target slightly because mining is a little bit harder, we wanna make the target easier. And then we wait for headers to come in from the miners. Now, these aren't blocks, it's almost like a weak block, right? So, here we wait until we have at least four. We take their average and we say, oh, we don't have a block yet. The lowest four I've seen aren't below the target. So, we wait, the average is getting lower. Finally, we take the lowest four.  You get a reward proportional to the number of proofs that you have included in the new block. The miner with the lowest, the header that hashes to the lowest value is the one that produces the block and what they get to do is decide which transactions go in it, okay? So, it turns out that if you do some math, you can figure out the formula for adjusting the target as once you decide on the value of K, K is the number of proofs that you average together to form a block and the formula is not so important. I'm putting it up there just to show you that you could actually do this switch in a single block. Like, it could just be a sort of a hard fork where you make this change. And so, this is in a lot of ways basic applied statistics, right? The difficulty setting is not formally an estimator, but just think of it that way. If I told you that there's a bus that loops around part of Tokyo in a circle and I wanted you to tell me how often it goes around the circle, well, you can't do that easily from one observation of how long it took, but if I let you view it four or five or 10, maybe even 40 times, you'd have a very good estimate of the average time for that bus to go around. And when you create a block with a single proofa, with a single hash value as proof of work, that single value is not great information for estimating how much work has been done. It's pretty good information, as you can tell. We're all using Bitcoin. But if you included more values in estimating the amount of work, then your estimates would be better and the variance is lower. So it turns out if you do some more math, the variance of this new method is one over K. So in other words, if you take two values, the variance is half of what it is. If you take 40 values, the variance in interblock times is one 40th of what it is now. So there's different values of K you can choose from. Here you can see my original K equals one line that I put up earlier. If you chose K equals 40, then in the worst case, the worst 40% of blocks would come out 13 to 18 minutes after the previous block. And so actually, we're still keeping the average at 10 blocks here. Now the waste, the middle 80%, come out every seven to 12 minutes. So the average would be 10 minutes, but the interblock time would be between seven to 12 minutes, 80% of the time. Okay, so the interesting thing is this isn't just a convenience, right? Wouldn't it be great to have a blockchain where blocks come out very regularly, very dependable, dependably. But it actually thwarts a lot of different attacks and hardens the blockchain. So right now we all wait six confirmations for something to go through because we're worried about this double spend attack. Well, what if I told you you had an attacker with 40% of the mining power and I could just give you a one block confirmation, you'd say that's crazy. And the reason is this graph, it shows that a miner with 40% of the mining power could succeed at double spending 53% of the time. Those aren't very good odds, right? If you did bobtail this averaging of 40 block headers before you released a block, then the chances of that same attacker succeeding with double spend dropped to below 1%. So this is a significant improvement. If this was adopted in Bitcoin Cash, it would be the most secure blockchain algorithm out there by far. So similarly, oh sorry, that was the circle I didn't put up. Similarly, this approach really completely mitigates selfish mining. This is the probability of selfish, or rather the proportion of blocks that a selfish miner gets in Bitcoin Now. It's that red line right on top. And so if you're familiar with the paper, I'm setting gamma equal to one. In other words, the miner has a huge advantage here. So any amount of mining power leads to successful selfish mining in Bitcoin Now. But if you set K equal to say 20 or 40 or anything really above 20, the chances or rather the proportion of blocks that the selfish miner gets in bobtail is always below honest unless they have 40% of the mining power, 49% of the mining power, which really just more than decimates the selfish mining attack. Okay, so this is some stuff that I presented previously. What have we been doing in the meantime? Well, we've really been focusing on, I should say, I meant to say at the top, that this is a paper that we've not submitted for peer review yet. We're about to do that, but this is sort of just work in progress right now. But in the meantime, we've been investigating new attacks that bobtail suddenly allows for by its use. And so there's no attack we come up with yet that we haven't been able to solve. The most interesting one and the hardest one for us to solve has been withholding attacks. And it's sort of, one way to think of it is sort of an intra block selfish mining attack. Like we're all mining, but I'm keeping my proofs to myself and I'm not allowing you to use those. So we had a sort of complicated reward scheme and we found that a simpler one, well, it's not only simpler, because simpler's better, but it actually eliminates the threat of this attack. And so to remind you, the miners are gonna announce block headers, but not necessarily the transactions that go with it. We're calling those proofs and then a collection of proofs together will form a block if the average of the hash of those proofs is below the target. And then we're gonna include this requirement that proofs reference the smallest other proof they've seemed to date. What do I mean by reference? Well, every block references its prior, right? It includes the hash of the prior in its header. So we add this requirement that you add the hash of the lowest proof that you've seen. So the consequence of this is it ends up thwarting these attacks. By the way, the reference to the other proof is called the support. So each proof contains a support and some of the supports will actually reference the lowest proof that was ever created for that block. So in the end, miners are gonna be rewarded for the number of proofs that appear in a block and then they're gonna get a bonus when their support names the smallest proof in the blocks. And the bonus incentivizes everyone to announce all of their proofs. And let me explain how this works, but one other thing to notice is that sometimes there's more proofs, you have a lot of proofs and there's more than one way to construct a block. Miners, whoever's creating the block with the lowest proof available, they break ties among all the blocks that are available by favoring their own proofs. So we allow that, we encourage it in fact. So one thing you may be asking is like, well, is it still the case in Bob Tell that miners get rewards that are proportional to the mining power? And if that's true, then the reward should be linear with the mining power and that's exactly what we see here. And so as I said, miners get rewarded based on the number of proofs that are included in the block and then they get a bonus reward for referencing the lowest one. Now the order of these proofs as they come out is random in the sense that they don't come out like smaller, smaller, and smaller, and smaller, and smaller, right? So the lowest one will come out on average halfway through. And so if you're being honest, about half of your proofs that made it into the block should reference the lowest one. And so that's exactly what we see here in this simulation I wrote of the whole system. So things are proportional, which is great. Now the problem is that the miners, as I said before, can withhold proofs so that no one else can reference them. And so this is a kind of denial of service attack. It's really selfish mining. And so if you do this, as I show in the results of the simulation here, the blue line, which are the honest miners, really lose some bonus rewards that they would have gotten. So that's a big problem. We don't really want to allow for that. In fact, it's a little worse than I just showed in the last one because in the last one, just to make it clear, the selfish miners, the intra-block selfish miners, weren't even prioritizing their own proofs. But if they do that, it gets even worse. And now they can even, the red line there is the attacker. They can increase the number of proofs they get while hurting the honest miners. So this seems like a disaster, but in fact it's fixable with a simple change. So we enhance the protocol in a very small way. We say that miners don't accept blocks mined by someone else when they don't include a lowest proof that they know about. That's number one. And the other thing is that miners simply accept new proofs that they hear in a first in, first out sort of way. And I don't mean according to the timestamp in the header, just as they see them locally coming off the network. And what this thwarts is someone withholding and then the last minute saying, no, no, no, I got all these, right? Here you go. And so they won't actually, the attacker in that sense won't get their proofs or bonuses into the system. So basically if there's like a batch of proofs that suddenly come out from an attacker, the honest miners just try to create a block one by one in the order they receive them prioritizing their own proofs. And that actually not only hurts the attacker, it actually gives the kind of extra money to the honest. So now this withholding attack is basically economically disincentivized, right? So basically honest behavior will get you the most rewards in the Bob Tell system. Okay, so what I wanna say is that this is actually a generalization of Satoshi's ideas and not a break from it, right? We're just increasing the number of values that are compared against the target, right? Rather than just saying the single lowest value, we take the mean of several values and you can think of the block sizes being a parameter that can be expanded or you can think about the number of proofs that get averaged before there's a block as something that can be expanded. As I said, the target can be adjusted in one block so it's not like you can just, this is a hard fork but you can just agree on a particular block where things change over for a particular K. It's compatible with existing ASIC hardware. I didn't show slides on why but I did present that at the scaling conference and what I said is absolutely true. As I said already, the rewards are proportional to mining power so it doesn't cause any problems there. The real costs are that you have to include extra information in the header but I'm talking about hundreds of bytes or maybe a couple K at the most. Compared to the block size, I mean this is nothing. I mean going from eight megabytes to 32 is a ridiculous amount more data than what I'm talking about adding to the header. There's actually some extra traffic because you announce proofs as they happen but it's again nothing compared to the actual transaction traffic in Bitcoin Cash. Certainly the extra transaction traffic that would come from larger blocks and of course there's new code to write and testing of that code, that's a cost but we're ready to do that. I mean we ourselves are ready to do that and part of the reason we want it to be the ones to implement graphene was to show the community that we're ready to contribute so we'd love to do that for Bob Tells as well and work with others to do that. Okay so conclusions are just difficulty adjustment so these are really almost more consequences than conclusions so if you have low variance interblock times, if blocks come out easily then any difficulty algorithm will be more accurate. Additionally as I said already one block verification is more secure and then to link back to the other talks that were presented you can think of these proofs that I'm talking about is actually just weak blocks, right? They're just block headers. They could be the block headers and the transactions that went into that block or not but if you include the transactions that were mined that the miners doing before they present their proof then that is weak blocks and you could actually see which miners are including which blocks in their forthcoming blocks and that announcement of which transactions you're doing would actually be very efficiently done with graphene and then furthermore all of this information is more information for the difficulty adjustment and another thing is that with these proofs you could actually estimate the amount of mining power that any individual mining pool has at the moment so you could say I'm gonna buy this $100 maybe $800 stereo right and then you could see what percentage of the mining power is actually working on that particular transaction not just from their history but from the actual proof value there's ways to convert the hash of a header into an estimation of hash power. Okay. And finally as I said it protects against selfish mining attacks, eclipse attacks who've shown that small tweaks to the scheme prevent against what I'll call intra-block selfish mining or intra-block withholding attacks and the end result is that transaction throughput is even and reliably on time which has great user adoption benefits, right? People would see it as a very even-handed, very nice reliable currency. So that's about it. I'll take any questions you have. My contact information is there. There is a PDF of Bobtail on Archive. The work I just presented here is not included but soon we'll update that to make sure it's part of the PDF. So I'll take any questions. Thanks. Thank you, Brian. All right. Okay, questions. You gotta forgive me because I'm the runner guy. All right. Go from here. Hey, thanks, Brian. One quick question. You talk about rewards for these proofs. Can you just talk more about it? Where is this gonna come from? How, you know, any drawbacks and everything like that? So George has this great quote that I love to quote and he says that all blockchains are just orchestrated incentives, right? I mean, that's why they work. You want, and someone else said it in a different way that you want all honest behavior to be just naturally incentivized. And so to us, the structure of the rewards is what makes the protocol secure. So, I mean, that's where it really comes from. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but. Yeah, I was thinking. Yeah, so for instance, if like right now the Coinbase of course is 12.5, right? And in this slide right here, I'm saying there's 40 proofs that together, the hash of those proofs are averaged together to see if they're below the target. So if you're a miner with 20% of the mining power, you'll get on average eight of the 40 proofs. So you will get eight 40ths of the reward, right? Now additionally, it's a little more complicated. You would get eight 40ths plus, you would get four 40ths on the bonus side. So you would get there's, anyway, the formula is basically the number of proofs you have plus the number of bonuses. If you're following this, sorry if that's confusing, one consequence is actually that the Coinbase would actually be a little bit variable per block with Bobtail, right? You wouldn't necessarily give out 12.5 because the number of bonuses can change per block. So I don't think this is a bad thing. Like you could take the extra and put it in a pool and there's other nice consequences, other protocols that are available because there would be a pool of unspent Coinbase. It would help with other problems that I've heard. So it's a detail I didn't really have time to go into. But the short answer to your question is you get a reward based on the number of proofs you have and the number of blocks, the number of proofs that you, the number of proofs you have that reference the lowest proof, that's the bonus. So, okay, other questions? Yeah, hi, so it's really interesting. I, thanks for the talk. Thanks for the talk and thanks for this explanation. I am still getting into like learning about Bobtail. I think it can be combined with big blocks. What I'm wondering about and maybe you can like talk about this is if you don't receive the transactions for one of the headers, what do you do then? And also like in general, how do you combine the transactions for the different proofs that you generate? Okay, so strictly speaking, you don't need to know the transactions of the proofs that you're joining together. You just need to know the Merkle route. You just need to know the proof header, right? So what happens is every miner grabs together the transactions that they want to mine and then they make a header out of that and then they hash it, I'm missing some details here, but they hash it and then if it's below K times the target, then it's a valid proof. I'm not explaining how I got K times target, but it's in the paper.  Now I do that and I've got a collection of proofs and I gather all the ones I need and I take all 40 and that is the new block and I just need to know the transactions that I know about. So that's the basic Bob tail scheme, but this is compatible with the other talks where people talked about weep blocks and knowing what the other miners are doing and that. So that's a sort of just to show that this is synergistic with other ideas, but strictly speaking, it's a standalone idea as well. All right, we have time for one more question. First of all, thanks for that, can you hear me? Yep. Thanks for this graphing Bob tail, amazing. So how does this interact with, maybe compare with the ghost protocol or like proposals to cut the target block time and the block reward in half? Seems like this has advantages. So ghost, you mean like Ethereum's ghost or a view of Zora's ghost? So we don't, if you did Bob tail, it doesn't change the orphan rate of Bitcoin cash or Bitcoin period. I mean it would be, you don't need ghost basically. It doesn't cause any problems that cause you to require ghost to come to the rescue. You could, so your other question is, what if you cut the block, the interblock target down from say 10 minutes to, you could have four blocks every 10 minutes and so you would just use Bob tail and you would really have four blocks every, you would really have a block every 2.5 minutes on average which would have a much smaller variance. So it's completely compatible with that. Yeah, so no problems there. All right, thank you very much, Brian. Thanks.