Today we're going to talk about Charlie Adelson. Greg, tell us about the videos we're going to watch. So this is Charlie Adelson who was on trial for conspiracy to commit murder of his brother-in-law. On May, his brother-in-law was killed in 2014, shot twice in the head and left in his garage for 14 hours before he died. Later, there's a person you'll hear him talking about called Sigfrido Garcia was arrested and charged with his murder and eventually convicted and is spending life plus 30 in prison for that murder and conspiracy. In the middle of all that is this person you'll also hear him talking about, Catherine Magbanua, who was apparently Charlie's girlfriend and the mother of the murderer's children. So there's a convoluted twisted case here with a lot of pieces that unfolded over a five or six year period, finally resulting in Charlie being convicted on November 6th and sentencing is yet to occur. At the time though, you did not think she was guilty. We've got that right. The time of the extortion. In 2014? Yes. Correct. Okay, and then so exactly when you found out would be, I think you said her trial. That I suspected that she was not telling me the truth and she was a part of it was in 2019. At her trial? Yes. All right, and so she was arrested in 2016, right? Yes. All right, so for three years, she was in the Leon County jail awaiting trial, yes. She was there. And you believed she was innocent? Yes. And you had this whole explanation to assist with exonerating her, right? I have the truth of what happened, yes. But you didn't offer the truth of what happened, did you? Nobody came to me. I thought the truth would come out. Does someone have to come to you? I was told not to talk to Katie and not to talk to anybody about this case by counsel. All right, Chase, what do you got? So let's just break this down. This first one's really short. So as a prosecutor, your body language plays a giant role in how the jury perceives the trial as a whole. And this doesn't just mean while you're cross examining somebody. So if you remember back to the Amber Heard case, even if you just caught a glimpse of it, there was a huge difference between the disorganized and constantly caught off guard legal team of Amber Heard. And in this case, the prosecutor here, her name is Georgia Kaplman, does a great job. And she's now kind of internet famous, kind of like Camille Vasquez, who was Johnny Depps or one of Johnny Depps attorneys. So as we're moving into these videos, I'm guessing that we're gonna see a lot of plaque buildup in this story. And this is definitely gonna be one of those, kind of maybe the more different videos that we've done based on what I've seen in these videos. And Greg, incredible job putting all this together. So a couple of things. Let's talk about what body language is and what it isn't. I always try to explain to people that if you can pick up five simple pieces of body language, you can understand a lot of what's going on. Emblematic gestures and that's simply something we all recognize, okay, signs, thumbs up, that kind of thing. The other is an illustrator where I make my point. Then there's a regulator where we control conversation. There is an adapter where we release nervous injury and a barrier where we put something between us. Of those three are primarily for communication and it's your brain trying to punctuate what your brain is thinking.  Here's me punctuating what my brain is thinking. So gestures, illustrators and regulators are us communicating. The other two are comforting or protecting. And so we say a barrier, I put something between me and you, I try to make space or I reconfort myself. Well, the good thing about that is our brain is always going to try to punctuate what it's thinking, even when our mouth is saying something else. And if you don't believe that, watch. I love watching this prosecutor because she's getting her point across and she does a great job with it. You see that forehead up? She's asking this guy for approval. Even though she couldn't care less if he improves, she's trying to talk him into something along the way. Her thumbs and her fingers are spread and she's navigating. They've just come out of verbal joust about whether or not something was true and how the order things went in. And you'll see this guy do a fair amount of it, but she does a cadence shift slowing down as she talks her way through it as she's trying to explain something to him. This is important for you because whether you're at your club, you're at work, you're wherever and you see a person doing that or trying to convince you of something. That's okay when it's appropriate. They're trying to convince you. When they're not, it's not appropriate. There's a different problem and you should pay attention to why they're doing it. Just a couple of notes on him. He adapts by swiveling in the chair just a bit and there's a rise and some contempt in his left lip and his nose. I almost thought to start with it was discussed until I saw the lip. When he's talking about his girlfriend was part of this whole thing. That's followed by really quick mouth close and a distaste or disapproval kind of that look. And the last thing I'll leave you with on him is he has an elevated blink rate throughout this trial, but that doesn't stop us from counting deviations. So watch, even though it's high all the time, it deviates at times and we're going to pay attention to that. And the last one with her is she does an eye jab is what I say when she's trying to make her point.  Like you expect me to believe that. It's really powerful. There's a couple others in there. Mark, I'll leave some that I didn't talk about. I'm sure you will. You know, scent is part of your nonverbal behavior. It affects the way people judge you. And just like other body language, some of it you can't control, but some of it you can. Thanks to scentbird, our sponsor for this episode. Scentbird lets you choose a new designer fragrance to try every month for just $17. You can get a 30 day supply so you can try out what you want before having to commit. Some full bottles of fragrance can easily go from $300 to $500. So it's great if you want to try one before committing all that money. Every month you get to pick what you want to receive so there's no surprises. They have fragrances for men, women and unisex. Scentbird carries brands like Prada, Gucci and Versace. This month's scent for me was Asenza by Aquedeparma. I've always been an Aquedeparma fan. This one's very burger moe like a really good cup of Earl Grey tea comes in this handy size, good for traveling. Scentbird suggests any scent they send is a month's worth. And if you don't enjoy one of the scents, then you can gift it out. There's extensive evidence that smells can help modulate mood and emotion. So picking the right scent for you can help you get the results that you want and influence others. If you want to get 55% off your scentbird order then use the code TBP55 at the checkout. And that means you'll get it for a little over $7 a month available in the US and Canada. Thank you, Scentbird, for the sponsorship and let's get back to the show. Yeah, maybe not. I mean, look, I'm the same as you. She was part of it 2019. We get that contempt there. That's kind of interesting. It's very, very subtle. It's very, very small. And he doesn't do very, very much during this. Yes, we've got that swinging in the chair. There is subtle stuff happening in the mouth, but it's consistent and goes on and on. And yeah, we will see deviations from that for sure. But ultimately, compared to the prosecutor who is very demonstrative, he's doing very, very little. So it starts to feel like we're going to need to get out some kind of magnifying glass on this guy to see anything throughout that. We will see stuff. We will see stuff. But against her, it's such a big contrast that actually that's one of the most exciting things about the videos that we're going to see is this incredible contrast that we have in this courtroom. And the question is, why? Why? Why will we get this contrast? What's going on that's going to cause him to be relatively so subtle and her so demonstrative here? What might that mean? So look, that's all I got on that first one. Already very interesting. Scott, what do you got? All right. Yeah, I agree with you. And first things first, let's talk about that weird eye behavior he's got going over. He closes his eyes too long. He's got a fairly normal blinking situation happening. It's a little bit high, though. It's 58 times a minute in some spots when it starts jacking up. But that eye closure thing is to have a little take of his what we saw in the last video of his, what is it, his sister that we saw? Is that what Wendy? Yeah. So when they cut to him, we'd see that behavior as well. So let's talk about this attorney. I know a lot of times we get on here, we just fall all over somebody. But she did such a great job with this. And you can tell in my impression, she's been doing a long time. And she's got that thing on her where if you start seeing that look and haven't somebody talked to you that way, you're in big trouble. And she's letting him know she's really controlled. And she's really, she's on point and she's very confident with it. And to her, there's no question about what happened here. And she's letting him know there's no question about what happened here. Her cadence is slow, her speech is really clear. And her illustrators parallel her cadence when it starts speeding up just a little bit so to her illustrators.  And when that happens, what she's doing is she's making sure he understands she knows everything she's talking about is true. That's the feeling you get from watching this. So it's really powerful the way she's pulling this off. Now, sometimes they don't land where they should as she's talking. And usually we're taught when we watch someone we're observing someone who's being deceptive we'll see that happen. They'll say things where their illustrators don't land where they're supposed to and they'll land later, maybe too soon or they'll keep going. But in this case, that's okay because she's got this question that she's just read it of course but she's read it several times and it's loaded. And she knows she needs to cover what she's talking about within the illustrator. She wants to make that more powerful. So as it comes out, she already knows from a speaking point of view I'm sure Mark will be able to go even deeper on this but she's trying to make that point even heavier as she goes forward. I don't know how to word that any better than that. She's trying to make sure you understand what she's saying. That's why she's illustrating so slowly because that's going on. She's got the inner dialogue going on as she's doing as she's talking and illustrating. Now, she's also exhibiting what I call confirmation nods where a lot of times people think you're saying yes when you're saying no, but you're saying I did not do it but they're just confirming they didn't do it. Not saying I didn't do it or did you do it? No. And you see that little head shake then you can say that's not a confirmation nod. They're actually in their brain. They know they did it and they're trying not to say yes but their body saying yes as they're saying no that's not what's happening here. Those are confirmation nods. And they're almost like they're the same as illustrators in a lot of ways because they come in on those specific points she's talking about. So keep that in mind as we go forward because sometimes people say well you said head nods means this, mean this or a shoulder shrug means that. These things have different meanings when they're in different situations. And so you guys talked about that little micro expression we see there between 2019. I'm gonna say this is, it's not that I don't agree with you but from my point of view it looks more like it's anger and disgust. Whatever that reason for that being because we see the look at it's on his left side which would be your right side looking at the screen when this thing starts again. So you see that I can't do it.  He's probably mad because he's there. He's mad because he's thinking about that the situation that happened during that time she's brought up. So that could be what's firing that off. Again is blink rate. Let's keep an eye on that and let's even he's got that tick where his eyes closed. I'm counting those as we go through and I'll say I think it's this many blinks for his blink rates gone up or down. I'm counting those as well. So, all right, are we good? One of those tape replays. At the time though, you did not think she was guilty. Got that right. The time of the extortion. 2014. Yes. Correct. Okay, and then so exactly when you found out it would be I think you said her trial. That I suspected that she was not telling me the truth and she was a part of it was in 2019. At her trial? Yes. All right, and so she was arrested in 2016, right? Yes. All right, so for three years she was in the Leon County jail awaiting trial, yes. She was there. And you believed she was innocent? Yes. And you had this whole explanation to assist with exonerating her, right? I have the truth of what happened, yes. But you didn't offer the truth of what happened, did you? Nobody came to me. I thought the truth would come out. Does someone have to come to you? I was told not to talk to Katie and not to talk to anybody about this case by counsel. Did you hear any of the negotiations? So they come in and they say, strike, they come in and they say we need a third of a million dollars? You need to pay a third of a million dollars. You need to pay a third of a million dollars. Why not a million dollars? Because when I had told to Katie that the million dollar offer for Dan Markell I said I was gonna pay a third of a million. And when she asked me, do you have that much money? And I said, yeah, I could pay it in cash. So she took it as I had cash and she knew I had a ton of cash in my safe. So she thought I had the cash. I didn't have all that cash. So that's where I'm assuming they got the third of a million dollars from. But the offer that she bragged about was a million dollar offer, isn't that right? That she ran her mouth about. I was never there when she spoke to her friend. Okay, was it a million dollar offer? The offer was that a million dollars was gonna be paid and I was gonna pay a third of a million. And weren't you gonna cover Wendy's third as well? No, not at all. I was gonna cover my third. Didn't your lawyer say an opening statement that you were gonna cover the whole thing? Or Wendy's third? No, I was sitting here, I heard what he said. Charlie was gonna pay a third of a million dollars. All right. And so the offer was a million dollar offer and that's what you told Katie along with the fact that you were gonna cover the third. I was telling her that I was gonna pay a third of a million dollars, yeah. And then one day if my sister was able to, she was gonna pay me back. And then you didn't have the amount of money that was being demanded at the time, right? No, I only had what I had. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, one interesting thing, this guy has pretty pronounced grief muscle and by grief muscle it's a cluster of five muscles in your forehead that come together and create that arch. Not just the two uprights. And people will say there's no such thing as a grief muscle. It is for, I think if I recall the correct terms Darwin and Duchain said it was for brevity, they would call it a grief muscle. It's just a little arch right there. He shows it several times and his brow tips show up for sorrow. What we don't know is why. Is he sorry because he's here? Is he sorry because he was involved? Is he sorry for something else? So we have to look for where all this stuff ties together. What I do find interesting is he has an answer for everything except right here. When she starts poking him and when he says, when I talk to Katie, listen to the stammer in his voice, listen to things starting to change. When I talk about baseline, I typically talk about all the body in a list of categories of three. One is verbal, that's diction, that's your choice of words or they fit your sentence structure and that kind of thing or not. That's one thing, one pattern you're looking for. Second is vocal. And vocal is pitch, tone and cadence. And cadence. Pitch is that rise, that high rise in your voice. Tone is, I don't have to tell you because you know if I say, it's not what you said, it's how you said it. And then cadence is how you want along as you talk. How fast, how slow, how pronounced, how loud, all of that comes into this.  And that's the stuff you guys all call body language and what we're looking at, the way your body is communicating in that. Listen to the change in his choice of words and we'll often say loss of verbal fluency. It's not a matter of verbal fluency, in this case, it's a matter of him trying to string the words together in the right order.  What's cool is to watch him and his sister and to wonder, is there a family tradition? Is there a family communication style at the table when you're a child of being contained and not animated that taught them both to be this way? Because they're both very contained and both in different professions. He's an oral surgeon, she's an attorney. Look at his emotional eye accessing and all this I think is tied to him feeling kind of dumb about not being able to answer this question there or ill-prepared. There's also a little smile from him as this lawyer starts, or as this prosecutor starts asking about the third of the, the second third of the payment.  I think a little smile is contempt from him for the attorney, because he's winning and I think that's it. And then he does an eye block and that's that. Scott, what do you got? Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with you. A lot of people are gonna think that's dooper's delight. First thing out of somebody's mouth as soon as they see like a little something like that. I'm under the impression it's a wintz. He's sort of wintzing at that thing. So I could be wrong, but I think his stress is rising through there and that's why we're seeing that. Again, his blink rate is around 60 per second. 60 times a second he's blinking and he's starting to feel the stress a little bit here. And we got. Per minute. Yeah, what did I say? Per second would be pretty damn quick. Oh, per second. Ah, sorry, man. Okay. Yeah. I meant per minute. What's that talking about? His blink rate. I know that but I got rid of that. Anyway, so anyway, he's feeling the stress. Now this behavior is a perfect example of why we like to talk to someone when they've done something they shouldn't have done or interviewing someone when they're sitting in a chair like that. It's a swivel chair or a chair on wheels because every little move you make that chair is gonna move and watch him as we go throughout all these videos. Watch how he'll go back and forth. And he's not trying to sit there and do that. It's just happening.  So he's seem to go back and forth. That's why he's doing it. But he's not sitting there trying to do it on purpose. So watch him. Sometimes it's really light. Sometimes it's a lot heavier. You're right. Greg, his grief muscle has shown up and it's getting a little bit larger here. And you see it gets larger and smaller as we go through but keeping on his blink rate when that thing's getting large as well because it goes up and down almost in tandem with it. And then let's play close attention to his arms as we go through this because you can't see much. That's the thing I don't like about this is we can't see much going on because it cut him off like here. So you can see some things happening but you're not sure what. I don't think he's illustrating down here because both the arms go up at the same time. So quite often when someone brings their arms close their limbic system is kicked in and they're trying to protect themselves to make a long story short. So they're not as confident as they would be with their arms out a little bit. Same thing with the hands but we're getting the hands here in a little while. Mark, where do you got? Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Look, there's a lot going on but it's super subtle and it's really contained. And I agree there's something of a family trait here and he's really good at containing it and really good at more clearly displaying what I would suggest as some more confident gestures. I think he's got his story sorted out. He's got it really set in his mind. For example, on no, I only had what I had we get a very calm double shrug on that to say, hey, what are you gonna do? It's just the way it is. And it's one of the biggest gestures he does. So if you're not looking out for all these little subtle things that Greg and Scott have already put in there you could easily just see that double shrug of, hey, I'm just calm sitting here. What are you gonna do? Here's my story. Also, the questioning here is quite argumentative. I don't mean it in the legal sense that somebody would go, you're on a argumentative. I mean, it's just the question here is saying, but and didn't you? And it's constantly confronting him. And so a lot of this, the little subtle stress issues we see in him you could easily put down to the fact that he's just being argued with and he's got his story set out and you could go, hey, maybe it's a true story. So wouldn't anybody be a little unnerved subtly about having this, their true story questioned all the time? But at the same time, it's very calm for this situation. Given the gravity of it. I mean, if he's convicted, which he does get convicted, gonna do a lot of time. We don't know what time he'll do at this point, but this is a bad situation to be in. And I already start going, why so calm? Well, Greg's got a point, could be a family trait, could be a dentist. You've got to have a steady hand and you see a lot of terrible stuff and maybe a lot of rotten teeth or whatever. And also, depending on what kind of dentist he is, if you're stitching, you've got to do the smallest stitches. So you've got to be quite a contained craftsperson to do some of that dental work that goes on. So, you know, just to put this forward, that in every situation you've got to look at, look, what are the possibilities the honesty is going on here? Not that I think he's being honest at all, but what are the possibilities here? Now I might do some of that as we go through, just to keep it entertaining. Chase, what do you think? What do you got on this one? Mark, what you said is the legal definition of argumentative. Okay. That does fit the definition. And Greg and Scott, to your point, quickly about them maybe having a cloistered environmental lockdown thing. Maybe y'all saw them somewhere else, but I think if you take a person with guilty knowledge or guilt and throw them in a box, that's lockdown is almost kind of a default for a lot of people. So, and that's the only time I've had a chance to observe them is in a courtroom when they feel guilty or anything. So lockdown's kind of a default for guilt in many cases, but maybe there's a familial tie to some of that stuff. But one thing, Scott, you were talking about his arms moving away from his body a little bit here. And you can see that this bone right here is called the humorous. That's why that's called the funny bone down at the end of it, because the bone is humorous. But when the bone moves away from the body, that exposes the brachial artery. So the artery that's running from your aorta runs out here down into the bottom of your arm. So we expose our arteries when we're more confident in what we're saying and when we've rehearsed something really well. So in a lot of ways, we're not necessarily talking about deception in a lot of this. What we're seeing is, and this is very important in courtrooms, this arm movement out here is honest behavior in most situations, but there's different types of deception. And lies of omission are usually the easiest to get away with non-verbally speaking, unless you're taking a true event and then just kind of like putting a few stickers on it and making it a different thing. But that's when I think statement analysis comes to the rescue in a lot of these cases. And when you combine behavior analysis with statement analysis, then you have something a lot more powerful. And I think this clip individually shows us a lot of just sticking to things that are known and provable, which might be seen as maybe developing a bridge between the information that's pretty clear to be missing. So what's missing here? So what I am thinking that I am missing in this clip is I literally heard him say, I told Katie about the million dollar offer for Dan Markell. But he says this out loud, and it seems like unless this was out of context, I know nothing about this case. I missed something. So let me give you a data point. What he is, here's his whole story. I, him and his parents were going to give Dan Markell a million dollars to move to South Florida and commute back and forth to Tallahassee is the offer he's talking about. And that's why she knew about him having $300,000 in his safe that he didn't have. So yeah, it's a great catch because it's guilty language otherwise. Okay, that makes a lot of sense now. All right. Well, it's another explanation. He explained something away. It doesn't mean that it's true. The humorous bone is connected to the funny bone. One of those tape replays. Did you hear any of the negotiations? So they come in and they say, strike. They come in and they say, we need a third of a million dollars. You need to pay a third of a million dollars. You need to pay a third of a million dollars. Why not a million dollars? Because when I had told to Katie that the million dollar offer for Dan Markell, I said I was going to pay a third of a million. When she asked me, you have that much money? And I said, yeah, I could pay it in cash. So she took it as I had cash and she knew I had a ton of cash in my safe. So she thought I had the cash. I didn't have all that cash. So that's where I'm assuming they got the third of a million dollars from. But the offer that she bragged about was a million dollar offer, isn't that right? That she ran her mouth about. I was never there when she spoke to her friend. Okay, was it a million dollar offer? The offer was that a million dollars was going to be paid and I was going to pay a third of a million. And weren't you going to cover Wendy's third as well? No, not at all. I was going to cover my third. Didn't your lawyer say an opening statement that you were going to cover the whole thing or Wendy's third? No, I was sitting here. I heard what he said. Charlie was going to pay a third of a million dollars. All right. And so the offer was a million dollar offer and that's what you told Katie along with the fact that you were going to cover the third. I was telling her that I was going to pay a third of a million dollars, yeah. And then one day if my sister was able to, she was going to pay me back. And then you didn't have the amount of money that was being demanded at the time, right? No, I only had what I had. We all know now, because you have revealed the puzzle piece. She's a blackmailer. Can we agree on that? I believe sitting here in 2023. Yes. That she was in on the extortion for sure. Yes. Okay, if I refer to her as a blackmailer. I think there's a difference between blackmail and extortion, but yeah, that's sitting here today, we can. We'll refer to her as an extortionist. So this woman, an extortionist, is going to do you a solid by negotiating with the Latin Kings for you to get on a payment plan for the extortion. Isn't that what happened? What you're doing is you're taking what we know in 2003 and trying to say, this is what I knew in 2014. Did she put you on a payment plan? Yes, she said, because I didn't have the money, she said, ask me if I could pay $3,000 a month in 2014. And I said, yes, I can. Did you hear any of the conversation where she was making these negotiations on your behalf? No, when she said, I'm gonna go check with my friend and if that's okay with him, she took her purse, took her keys, took her cell phone, she walked out of my front door, closed the door behind her and I sat in my living room and she came back about five minutes later. You didn't want to talk to the guy yourself? No, I didn't even think of that. I mean, but she went outside to call him. All right, and then the two of you took a Xanax and went to sleep. Well, I took a Xanax, I don't know if she took one out of the bottle, but I definitely did. And the next morning, she left with your money, right? All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, just how extreme the contrast is here between these two central parties here. You got Adelson here. We are still getting a little bit of this kind of, these elbows coming out. I think everybody's right. I don't think it's because there's some kind of illustrative gestures going on there. I just think it is that little moment of confidence now and again in what he's saying. It could be absolutely right. It could be confidence in the rehearsal, confidence in the story. But in my terminology, most of the time he's there, he's in what I would call the circle, which means that some other part of his body is touching over his arms, is touching some other part of his body. And every now and again, a bit of space is made here. So compare that to the prosecution there, where she is going in often into what I would call third circle, where these joints here are almost locking out, almost locking out, but you get a lot of space between that. One is supremely more confident than the other. Why? Because it's taking up more space. Now, does that mean that one is more of a truth teller than the other? No, sometimes if you're wanting to do a really good lie, you might gesture out because you really want to prove it. And in those cases, sometimes we see the gestures leave the frame completely. I don't think we're ever with Adolfsson going to see his gestures ever leave the frame, but somebody here has a point to make and that's the prosecution. And she really is filling the space here, making herself the most entertaining thing on the screen. I don't mean entertaining in a negative way. I mean, without her, without her in these clips, we'd have very little to keep your attention right now. So and I think there's a potential that she knows that for the court as well. And she knows that and she knows this is a big, this is a popular crime at the moment. And this is a chance to make her name. Nothing wrong with that. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it is entertaining what she's doing there. Why is it entertaining? Because we know what's happening. We can see what she's trying to do. It's really clear and he is not that clear. One is more contained, one's more demonstrative. What does that tell us? Well, we'll find out as we go further along. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, a couple of things. Number one, there's nothing here to lie about. He's talking about the story of her going outside to talk to this guy, this hitman, whether he's talking about her talking to him about murder or about blackmail, doesn't matter. The same details would still apply. She went outside, she took this door, she took her stuff with her, went out and talked. So in effect, one of the best lies you can tell if you're gonna lie is transference. I take an incident that happened and I transfer it to a new location or a new time. It's easy, I know all the details. I just rattle off those details. It makes it hard to break because it's a real factual account. Just happens to not be used to describe what I'm describing. So it's a transference. Now, a couple of things.  It is not the time.  It comes across that way. He's parsing words. When you're just arguing about whether a person is a blackmailer or an extortionist, what do you think average people sitting in the gallery are thinking? Nevermind those 12 sitting that are gonna decide your fate in three hours. I think you said it was Chase. So it's tough. You gotta be very careful. When you watch her, the other one, I always talk about requests for approval, this forehead up thing. That's not what she's doing here. When he gets into that discussion about whether it's blackmail or extortion, when her forehead goes up, that's disbelief. Because if you look, there's other stuff that goes along with it. And you can see that her face is up, that's up like this. She's got a half smile and her eyes are amused. That's disbelief. That is not a request for approval. And then finally, as she says, didn't you ask to talk to him? It's funny you hear that little in his voice, never thought of that. Really funny to think that he might have gotten into the situation. If it were really true, you would think you'd say, let me talk to this guy. I wanna find out what he wants. I don't need this third party. Considering that we now know, comment, it sounded a lot like Prince Andrew, but considering that we now know comment that made him look like the smart ass, what we now know is that she was in the middle of all that. His respiration climbs a bit, but that's it. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, absolutely agree. Mark, it's funny you mentioned the first circle because I was fired from the position of second triangle in middle school in New York. It's not good, dude. Yeah, good. What'd you do? I screwed it up real bad. I guess I played it like a square. But in this video, he does something here that I teach to private clients that almost works for him, but he does it the wrong way.  And he tries one of them here in this clip. And if there's one takeaway from this that you can kind of write down in a notebook if you're watching this, a technique shown is a technique blown. So when you verbally bring up a technique being used by a person, it reduces the influential power of that technique to almost zero. So he's trying to kind of do that here, but he's doing it the wrong way. Great, exactly like you said. And there's a formula to follow, to make it stick in the jury's brain the right way and he's not using it. And then there's emotional accessing, which we might see a whole lot in the future. And that may just be a regular spot for him, but it's about this conversation with this woman before she goes outside to make this call. And I'd imagine maybe this was an emotional time for him. But this is something I would definitely want to drill in a bit more on. That's all I got here, Scott. All right, I don't know why this just hit me. I guess it's because we're talking about how an attorney, how you prep a witness in other words, some things you do and some things you don't do. One time he chased her doing Voidir. And that's where people call it, choosing the jury or whatever. So this one guy, you go around, do what? We weren't technically doing it. No, he's advising. Okay, okay, we are, yes, we were advising. Sorry about that, dude. And this one guy, the judge goes around the potential jurors and she says, is there any reason you shouldn't be here? You know where I'm going with this? The guy goes, I'm a racist.  One way out of jury duty, I suppose. One way to get yourself out. He said he chased her because he goes, do what? He said, do what? What? Unbelievable. I was down on this guy. Yeah, and he said, I'm a racist. She said, the judge said, what'd you say? He said, I'm a racist. And he meant it. He really was. Mind blowing. I couldn't believe it. I still talk about it to this day, as you can see. Anyway, some of the illustrators we see from the attorney are a little bit odd because she does that big hand wave out this way.  Everybody knows this. So that's why that one hand goes out there. Everybody, that's what she's saying. It sort of sticks there. Then she uses a regulator, almost like she's trying to keep him from talking. He's not gonna say anything, but she's like holding him back from saying something.  And we see a stress go through the roof on this. One of those tape replays. We all know now, because you have revealed the puzzle piece. She's a blackmailer. Can we agree on that? I believe sitting here in 2023. Yes. That she was in on the extortion for sure. Yes. So is it okay if I refer to her as a blackmailer? I think there's a difference between blackmail and extortion, but yeah, that's sitting here today, we can. We'll refer to her as an extortionist. So this woman, the extortionist, is going to do you a solid by negotiating with the Latin kings for you to get on a payment plan for the extortion. Isn't that what happened? What you're doing is you're taking what we know in 2003 and trying to say, this is what I knew in 2014. Did she put you on a payment plan? Yes, she said, because I didn't have the money. She said, ask me if I could pay $3,000 a month in 2014. And I said, yes, I can. Did you hear any of the conversation where she was making these negotiations on your behalf? No, when she said, I'm going to go check with my friend and if that's okay with him, she took her purse, took her keys, took her cell phone. She walked out of my front door, closed the door behind her, and I sat in my living room and she came back about five minutes later. You didn't want to talk to the guy yourself? No, I didn't even think of that. But she went outside to call him. All right, and then the two of you took a Xanax and went to sleep. Well, I took a Xanax. I don't know if she took one out of the bottle, but I definitely did. In the next morning, she left with your money, right? That it's important to maintain positive feelings between co-conspirators.  Will you agree with that? I'm not a co-conspirator with her. Okay, I'm saying in general. Can you agree in general that co-conspirators in a crime want to stay friendly with each other? I'm not a co-conspirator with her. I can't agree to that. If a co-conspirator develops a motive to harm another one, that could be bad, right? If a co-conspirator say it again?  And then 10 years later, you know, they've gotten away with it, but 10 years later, they fall out. That could be a problem. Somebody might start talking, right? I was never part of a murder. Were these gifts, these things that you provided to Catherine Mayer-Banawa and her mother and Sigfredo Garcia payment for the murder? Okay, I never got Sigfredo a gift in my life. The guy absolutely hates me. He wants to kill me. He stalked me. He extorted me. Like that was being completely sarcastic. And sometimes I make some bad jokes, but that's, even when I wrote, he wanted to take me deep sea fishing. I knew he wanted to kill me. Like you have that text too. I didn't think we were going deep sea fishing.   Are these gifts what it took to secure her silence for so long? No, absolutely not. I was never trying to get her silence. I was hoping she'd tell the truth. All right, Chase, what do you got? All right, so her questions about co-conspirators in a crime was pretty damn good. Getting a witness to agree to generalities is a great way to make it look to the jury that you're finding some common ground and also lead someone into what's called a logic trap. So when a jury hears something, they hear it. Even if it's disagreed with or stricken from the record and the judge tells them to forget it, which makes them even more likely to remember it later. The questioning the prosecutor is doing here is called a generalization question. So this is step one of something that we call a logic trap. And I think there's a way she could have worded it a little more vaguely at the beginning though, instead of criminal, she could have just said, let me just rephrase it, like would you agree that if people are working together for any purpose that it would be best if they get along? Would you at least agree to that? And then establish common ground on that, then move into the next thing and then make him look like an a-hole for not agreeing with you on the second and he looks more guilty because you established that common ground first. So here's what most people get mixed up when it comes to these situations. They think that these logic traps are something that you can only do to the witness. And these are actually something you can do to a jury when the jury is not even realizing it. So even though Charlie denies being a co-conspirator here, just the discussion of this concept in the context of the witness's relationship with other parties involved or whatever is subconsciously influencing the jury, just connecting them like braces. And the jury might start associating the witness with the concept of co-conspirators, especially if they agree, you're getting the jury also to agree with a general premise that Georgia is putting out there. Georgia is the prosecution attorney who's speaking here in this video here. And with the other question she uses, the trap here is that Charlie is put in a position where any agreement with a general premise would be the same as engagement with the hypothetical scenario, which kind of implies they're guilt by association in the subconscious of the jury. So denial, on the other hand, can start to seem defensive and unconvincing, especially if the jury's already been swayed by the hypothetical argument.  That's why it's important to start small with a lot of these things. I went really long on that one. Great, what do you got? Yeah, exactly what you said in the beginning. Once you said it, it's out there. So if I say, even if you say something outlandish and then strike it in the record, it doesn't matter if it's heard and to your point, activity around something is important. You remember arguments better than you remember most anything in your life for that very reason. This is a really good one for two reasons to me. Number one is he comes across pretty together. Nope, I was not a co-conspirator. Nope, I was not a co-conspirator both times, still planted there. And this is a great example. That thing I told you in the very beginning about what parts of your body language you're doing, those three pieces that are trying to communicate what you're saying, and she's trying to persuade somebody, look at that forehead up, request for approval like all crazy. Her illustrators and regulators and all that are conveying her message that she's trying to get across. Her brow is up and her thumbs are out as she slows down and she's trying to navigate the language and she's word fishing, trying to get exactly what she wants. So her body language is giving her away in a way his is not. When he does come back and starts to talk and he starts to answer, she starts to touch the back of her neck. I think it's adapting or she's got an itchy neck because we're gonna see it coming up a lot. Her neck must really be itching. I think that's an adapter for her to release nervous energy. And when he starts talking, he does downward tone. He's telling about the Sigfrido guy and it's good on his part. It looks, comes across as, look, that's not what happened.  I think this looks good for him and for her it looks like her trying to convince people of something. Pay attention when somebody's doing that to you because it could be for a good purpose or it could be for a bad purpose when somebody's trying to convince. But as they navigate, we're back to the same thing she did earlier. Scott, what do you got? Well, I agree with you about the hair thing in the back of her neck. I think she's adapting there because quite often you'll see women will live here. One quick note, I should have said this. I should have said this, what is an adapter? While you're talking about, we're lifting. Oh, okay. Adapters are the ways we get rid of that built up stress and tension. It's like sometimes people do this. You'll see someone talking and their hand will be down here and they'll see them doing that or they may just touch their face like that. That's a famous one you'll see on the news when people are being interviewed and things that's new like that. They may stretch their arms or they may jiggle their leg. When you see somebody jiggle in their leg that's what's going on. Everybody thinks, oh, they're being deceptive. Not necessarily. They could just be stressed most of the time it is. So adapters are the things we use to get rid of that built up stress and tension. But like I was saying, Greg, I agree with you when she puts her hand back there. I think quite often you'll see women do that when they're trying to get that heat off the back of her neck. I think she's actually angry with this guy. I think this has got her worked up, not worked up. But I mean, I think she feels anger toward this guy. So that's why I think she needs to get that feeling to get rid of some of that heat back there. But it's by lifting up. Quite often people do that with their shirts. See a little bit of air down there and cool off some. And let me ask you something, Greg, now that we're talking back and forth, is transference, that's yours, right? You came up with transference? I say we add that to the list of lies because that is so obvious. I can't believe it's never been added to the list and make it seven instead of six different lies. There are ways to lie. I'm gonna add it anyway when I talk about it from now on. So that's when you've coined. Another thing about this attorney, I think she's great because she's showing from a non-verbal perspective how confident she is. Look at her hands. Her fingers are never like this. Quite often when someone is not confident, you'll see that space close between their fingers. Their hands will sometimes curl up like this and they'll talk and do things. But her hands, her fingers are always open. She knows she's got this. That's another thing that's so great about her is that this is coming across to him. He knows, I think he knows he's in trouble. Big trouble. I think he knows there's no way out of this because she has all of it. And she's telling that by showing her confidence with all that space between, and not just a little bit. It's a lot. There's a lot going on there. So when you're talking to someone and you're asking them questions or you're trying to find out someone you're interviewing for a job even, if they're confident enough, their hands are on the table. See how far apart their fingers are. And the more stressful it gets, the less space you'll see between those fingers. Mark, where you got? Yeah, I think she was hoping for better out of this. I think she was hoping for a better result. And here's why. Are you right, Chase? She does manage to place him in the vicinity of conspiracy, but she was looking for an agreement. And we see that with our hand movements back and forth with him, very direct, looking for, would you agree that? Would you agree that? She was looking for agreement. He doesn't go with that agreement. Yes, she's placed him as an adjunct conspiracy, but he's not agreeing with the concept. And so now, yeah, we do get spread fingers. She does look very confident, but she now moves from these direct to more watery, more fluid, more influential gestures. She now wants him to agree to be somewhere around the territory of it. And so we see these more fluid gestures. We haven't seen these from her before. She's usually very direct. And then after that, when again, it doesn't work. He doesn't agree. He gets all, you know, he questions the very idea and concept that she's putting forward. And then the hand goes back. I think that's a sense of stress, disappointment. She wanted better out of this and she's not getting it.  And most of you're right. Most people in the audience of this aren't used to somebody questioning the very concept that you have. It's a little too erudite, but he probably feels very confident about it. She'll be able to see that. She'll know what she was trying to get and she didn't get it. And for me, that's our best conflict that comes up in this because it'll maybe go downhill after that for him. One of those tape replays. That it's important to maintain positive feelings between co-conspirators.  Will you agree with that? I'm not a co-conspirator with her. Okay, I'm saying in general. Can you agree in general that co-conspirators in a crime wanna stay friendly with each other? I'm not a co-conspirator with her. All right, can't agree to that. If a co-conspirator develops a motive to harm another one, that could be bad, right? If a co-conspirator say it again. Say, you know, husband and wife do a murder together. And then 10 years later, you know, they've gotten away with it, but 10 years later, they fall out. That could be a problem. Somebody might start talking, right? I was never part of a murder. Were these gifts, these things that you provided to Catherine Mayer-Banois and her mother and Sigfredo Garcia payment for the murder? Okay, I never got Sigfredo a gift in my life. The guy absolutely hates me. He wants to kill me. He stalked me. He extorted me. Like that was being completely sarcastic. And sometimes I make some bad jokes, but that's, even when I wrote, he wanted to take me deep sea fishing. I knew he wanted to kill me. Like you have that text too. I didn't think we were going deep sea fishing.   Are these gifts what it took to secure her silence for so long? No, absolutely not. I was never trying to get her silence. I was hoping she'd tell the truth. Why didn't you go to Dan's funeral? In Canada? I think there was some in Tallahassee and in Canada as well. I know there was a memorial service. But did you go to either? There was a memorial service here. Did you go to that? No, I didn't attend. I knew it had happened to him and there's no way I could have shown up. I would have been too upset. Mr. Dubin, your lawyer that was here, seems like a long time ago at jury selection, said people have different waves of grieving and that sort of thing. Were you grieving for the death of Dan Markel? I felt horrible about what happened and I knew what happened. When did you, I'm sorry. I wasn't close to him. But either way, I mean, I felt horrible about what happened. When did you find out exactly how he was killed? Meaning like shot twice in the head? I found out, it would have been the next morning is how I found out he got shot in the head. Do you agree that this was a first degree murder? Do I agree? And premeditated?  Do you think everyone involved should be convicted? I think everyone involved should be convicted. Even the person that hired the hit? I think anybody who played a role in it, but I wasn't a part of it. Do you regret that Dan Markel suffered for 14 hours before he died? I feel horrible. He was supposed to die quickly, instantly, right? Are you asking me? I am. No, he wasn't supposed to die at all. This was horrible, what happened? Did it surprise you that the cops were able to identify the Prius? Did it surprise me? Yes. I'm not a cop. I don't know what Cal cops investigate. Did it surprise you to learn that it's not a requirement of law to put the person at the scene of the crime to be guilty of a crime? Listen, I'm not a police detective. Was the police work in this case thorough? I'm sure the police did the best they could. Did you think that you had done everything properly? All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I'm not, don't have a whole lot here. This is an interesting one. I think what we see here marked to your point in the last video where she's having enough of him, I think Turnabout's fair play, and we're seeing he's had enough of her here because when this thing is going back and forth, is it just me or did you guys see some canine exposure, disgust and contempt at that upper lip rising anger, and then a narrowing of the mouth at the end of, yeah, I would have given him the money?  That doesn't look really good if you're trying to come across as compassionate or something else, but in this case, this looks like an altercation between two people and nothing else. His respiration comes up. He has an exasperated exhale and he swills on a chair. I think all we're seeing here is just to your point, Mark, him being fed up with her, you got, Mark? Yeah, I mean, it's very strong body language because there's just a lot of double shoulder shrugs on a lot of it. And so it has that air to it of, hey, what are you gonna do in this situation? He really is putting up a strong barrier to her arguments, but here's the problem with it. He gives a double shoulder shrug on, I wasn't a part of it. Well, I mean, that's not a like, what are you gonna do about it question? That's innocence. That's, and you're in the dock based on something that you had no part in. That now, that doesn't seem credible to me. I would expect more anger around that of somebody being falsely in the dock. Just more aggression around it, more incredulity around it. And for him, it's just like, hey, what are you gonna do? I wasn't any part of it. That's too casual. So it seems like he may have potentially rehearsed a lot of this, hey, what are you gonna do? It's like, this is just all wrong that you've got, but he's kept on with that pattern in a place that for me, I would expect to see a lot more emotion in there and a lot more aggressive emotion to get this thing fixed. This is a problem. He could do a lot of time and be wrongly accused in this. Like he needs to do, if he's innocent, he needs to do something very strong about this now, not shrug his shoulders and give up on it. Chase, what do you got on this one? Yeah, I'm gonna try to stick to just stuff that's relevant to the case and to the trial here. That George's lack of eye contact, the prosecuting attorney, during this while he's answering is very important, the lack of eye contact. So the authority an attorney carries in a courtroom is very important and the jury either knowingly or not, uses that attorney's level of interest to also gauge their own interest in what's being discussed and what's being said. So when he starts answering and she's looking away, that is either deliberate or not, but that lowers the credibility because she's not even willing to look or pay attention to the answer. And that is influential to a jury, but there are two huge cavities here that we need to take a look at. The first one is, he says the words, I felt horrible for what happened. This is something that somebody says who feels guilt, remorse, shame, or some level of control over what happened. You don't say I felt horrible about something that you had nothing to do with. You're gonna say I feel for them, it was a sad day, I can't believe this happened to the family, I felt horrible for what happened as if you had something to do with it. This is not something you typically hear innocent people say. Maybe it's an atypical person. But then George asked the question, do you agree this was a first degree murder? This question is so brilliant because it's almost like the punishment question where it's like what do you think should happen to the person who did this? But it's something that is only hard. It's only hard to answer for somebody who's guilty or involved with a crime. And he has some serious trouble with it. And she ends up having to help him understand it. Was it planned and premeditated? She has to help him with that. And then she says, do you think everyone involved should be convicted? And then she did it. That was the punishment question. I loved hearing it. There's a rehearsed answer for it or what looked rehearsed to me. Obviously this whole video is just all of our opinion. But then again, she says, do you regret that Dan Markel suffered for 14 hours before he died? And he says, I felt horrible with another shrug. Same exact words, I felt horrible that that happened. So I think this one clip is the best line of questioning that I've ever heard in this amount of time by a single attorney and I've sat in a lot of courtrooms. I went back through this and counted 39 things she did in just this clip, overtly and covertly, maybe some of it was unconscious, that will leave a very permanent mark in the jury's brain. And there's an old saying that the burden of proof is no match for the burden of emotion. And I'll admit, it's not an old saying. I just made that up, but I still think it's really relevant when it comes to jury trials. Scott, what do you got? All right, his chair swiveling increases during and after that question about the funeral. Because of course he wouldn't go to the funeral. He hated that guy. He wanted him. I'm under the impression he was wanting murdered since he paid for it or got that started. So that's why we see him swiveling again in that chair. Now, when she throws the punishment question out there and when she asks what she thinks should happen to those who committed the murder, when that happens, we see his blink rate go through the roof and it's skyrocket. And then we see two of the largest shoulder shrugs we see in this whole thing. We see some bigger ones here in a few minutes, but these are really big. So something's up there. Then he stiffens up. His blink rate again goes up to 120 per minute. And that's after the question about the Prius, because Greg, tell that story about how they got nailed for the Prius. And you'll understand. Well, apparently the Hitman rented a Prius and drove it through Florida, from Miami up to Tallahassee through all those checkpoints and all those sun pass stations. And so it was easy for them to track where they had gone. And then they were picked up on, apparently, surveillance camera from a neighboring house. So that is how they track them, is through that Prius. And I think they even had a license plate number. Were they marketing themselves as a more kind of ecologically sound hit? Was that the... I guess if you don't want to get pulled over along the way by a Prius, don't buy my car because you might get pulled over just randomly and say, where are you going?  No, it won't be because of where are you going, Greg. It's like, why are you going so fast? I've talked about this on here. Don't ever get in a car with Greg, believe me. It's one of the most... I will never forget every ride I've ever had with him because he's an ad, it'll be okay. And I always fall for it, man. You guys have to know, anytime we're with a bad driver in the car, I always make sure Scott's in the front seat when we have a canoe or something that looks like it's gonna be, hey, Scott, why don't you take the front seat just because Scott does not do well with driver stress. I like to drive, I'm the driver. I'm not a good rider. So I'm a driver. One of those tape replays. Why didn't you go to Dan's funeral? In Canada? I think there was some in Tallahassee and in Canada as well, but did you go to either? There was a memorial service here. Did you go to that? No, I didn't attend. I knew what had happened to him and there's no way I could have shown up. I would have been too upset. Mr. Dubin, your lawyer that was here, seems like a long time ago at jury selection, said people have different waves of grieving and that sort of thing. Were you grieving for the death of Dan Markle? I felt horrible about what happened and I knew what happened. When did you? I wasn't close to him, but either way, I mean, I felt horrible about what happened. When did you find out exactly how he was killed, meaning like shot twice in the head? I found out he would have been the next morning is how I found out he got shot in the head. Do you agree that this was a first degree murder? Do I agree? And premeditated?  Do you think everyone involved should be convicted? I think everyone involved should be convicted. Even the person that hired the hit? I think anybody who played a role in it, but I wasn't a part of it. Do you regret that Dan Markle suffered for 14 hours before he died? I feel horrible. He was supposed to die quickly, instantly, right? Are you asking me? I am. No, he wasn't supposed to die at all. This was horrible, what happened? Did it surprise you that the cops were able to identify the Prius? Did it surprise me? Yes. I'm not a cop, I don't know what Cal cops investigate. Did it surprise you to learn that it's not a requirement of law to put the person at the scene of the crime to be guilty of a crime? I'm not a police detective. Was the police work in this case thorough? I'm sure the police did the best they could. Did you think that you had done everything properly? One of those tape replays. Why did Garcia and Rivera, or whoever did it, I guess I should say, why did whoever did it need to kill someone to extort you? You gotta ask them. Why couldn't they just come put a gun to your head and say, give me all the money and you're safe? Thank God they didn't. Thank God they didn't? They thank God they didn't, I would have gotten it killed.  He was, it sounds like he was part of the extortion or Katie put him up to it. Doesn't blackmail or extortion usually involve the extortionist having some kind of dirt on the victim? I know how this was done to me. I know what, I'm just telling you what happened to me. I'm not an expert in it.  If someone came and put a gun to my head and yeah, would have opened up my safe and I would have given them the money. I still don't get how killing Dan Markell advances the ball for them to extort money out of you. Do you? Yeah, I have a theory. They could extort me for life and I don't think they knew exactly how much I had in the safe and she knew I had a lot of money in the safe but this way I could get extorted for life and that's what happened and I was paying, I was stuck paying $3,000 a month. But you could have gotten extorted for life just by the threat of death by Latin King, couldn't you, doctor? This was as real the threat as you get. I mean, these guys aren't messing around. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so he's still incredibly calm which is amazing and he's kept this demeanor pretty much throughout really without, I think without the magnifying glass that we're putting on some of the subtle things it would be really quite hard if you don't subscribe and haven't been learning with us along to really get into what's happening here underneath this outward demeanor of such calm. There's a question there of really, this begs belief and so there's more a sense of incredulity coming out from the prosecution. But he argues, this kind of, this is my lived experience and so again, he's super post-modern. What I like about him, he's very post-modern. He will argue the concept and then at the end of it all go, well, but this is just my lived experience. This is the way I see it. And so it's ultimately annoyingly argumentative, especially around a question where you're going, this just begs belief that you think life would turn out in this way, pretty annoying. And I think she's a little bit riled by this. Greg, what are you going on with this one? Yeah, so Mark, this is where I think he's had just had enough of her in the whole conversation.  I think this is just him had enough. This has been a banter back and forth. And I think a lot of times when we're reading body language we have to be careful not to look for why deep in their head something is going on, especially when they're on the stand because it could simply be the altercation occurring right in front of us. And I think that's what we're seeing. I mean his respiration is up and he has an exasperated exhale followed by a swivel. I think it's just the animal is doing what is response to the thing right across the table from Chase, what do you got? I agree with y'all and I am not an attorney but I'm going to play devil's advocate here on this clip just to show you that I think Charlie's defense team has given up on him entirely. They could have reasonably objected to almost every question here in this clip and he may need to get his retainer back but let's go with number one here. The question was, why did Garcia Rivera whoever did it?  This is speculation. It asks the witness to speculate on someone else's motive.  This is relevance. It asks about a hypothetical scenario that did not happen.  This is a leading question. It implies facts not an evidence. The fact that Garcia hates a person is not an evidence and I would have objected to that and I know nothing about the law. Next is, does it blackmail or extortion usually involve the extortionist having some kind of dirt on the victim? Like a personal knowledge and speculation. We're asking the witness again to comment on general practices of blackmail or extortion. He's a dentist. Next is, I still don't get how killing Dan Markell advances the ball for them to extort money out of you. This is asking the witness to speculate on motives and strategies again. So speculation and relevance. Then we have one, but you could have just gotten extorted for life, I think just by the death of, or by death by Latin King, couldn't you, doctor? And she says, doctor there, that's argumentative. It starts with but just like Mark showed you earlier, we're challenging the witness rather than trying to, what the legal definition says, trying to elicit factual testimony. I love how simple she makes all the questions though.  His blink rate is such a reliable indicator of stress here that you don't need much else.  So we're not looking for high and low blink rates. Remove that from your head. If you're studying behavior profiling, we're not looking for low, medium, high. We're looking for changes to those blink rates. So that's the big difference. Doesn't matter where it is. Is it going up or is it going down? Changes are so important. So more of this humorous movement that we talked about earlier. He's saying thank God that didn't happen, which isn't a lie. So we're seeing that humorous movement, but that's not really a lie. He's saying thank God that didn't happen. It's just information manipulation. So he's borrowing from an imaginary scenario, but she's asking him to borrow from an imaginary scenario. So it's hard to see deception in a lot of this here. Mark, what do you got? I went, I've been. That's correct, it's not clear. All right, he's not answering the questions. I mean, he's saying something, but he's not answering them. Like when she says, he's trying his best to sound like is. When she says, why couldn't they put it under your head and just take the money out of your safe? With that question, he says, oh, thank God they didn't. Dude, you're not answering the questions. This is, he's evading everything. He possibly can this thing. When he answers the question about extortion, the Lean's forward, that was loaded. He was ready for that one because he leans forward and it's a little bit louder and he delivers that because I think he was ready for that one. And then we see his stress continue to increase as he starts swaying back and forth in that chair more. So I think she's starting to get him on the ropes there and I agree with the chase. I think his attorneys are like checking their email or they're playing or is it candy crush something? Then they're doing something because there's a lot of things that like that that slip by. When she, well, I won't get into it because I'm not an attorney. If I go through and try to dissect that, I'm sure I'll get eaten alive by him. But in my opinion, there's a lot of things that she gets away with that I think she's doing on purpose just testing the water. And then this answer he gives where he says, this is a real threat. It's as real as you can get and these guys aren't messing around. And he sounds like he's trying to be a tough guy in there which I think is hilarious. Like he knows what's happening. He sounds like those guys that there's always talking about they weren't like in the military but they talk like they were and you have to ask them if they were and they weren't, but you wouldn't know it by the way they talk, does that make sense? So this guy, I don't think any of us would get along with this guy at all, not even a little bit after like four minutes hanging out with him. I don't think he'd make E.B. a good hang at all. One of those tape replays. Why did Garcia and Rivera or whoever did it?  You gotta ask them. Why couldn't they just come put a gun to your head and say, give me all the money and you're safe? Thank God they didn't. Thank God they didn't? They thank God they didn't. I would have gotten it killed.  He was, it sounds like he was part of the extortion or Katie put him up to it. Doesn't blackmail or extortion usually involve the extortionist having some kind of dirt on the victim? I know how this was done to me. I know what I'm just telling you what happened to me. I'm not an expert in it.  If someone came and put a gun to my head and yeah, I would have opened up my safe and I would have given them the money. I still don't get how killing Dan Markel advances the ball for them to extort money out of you. Do you? Yeah, I have a theory. They could extort me for life and I don't think they knew exactly how much I had in the safe. She knew I had a lot of money in the safe. But this way I could get extorted for life and that's what happened and I was paying stuff, paying $3,000 a month. But you could have gotten extorted for life just by the threat of death by Latin King, couldn't you, doctor? I mean, this was as real the threat as you get. I mean, these guys aren't messing around. Mom tells you on that first wire call that the bump involves the two of us referring to yourself and your mom, right? Yes, that's what she said. And would you agree prior to your explanation that that looks pretty incriminating? I think if you don't know what happened, you can assume the worst. Isn't it true that you had to add the bit about confiding your extortion and your mom in order to put that toothpaste back in the tube? No, that's what happened when I got the checks. Otherwise, why would you bring your mom into this? I didn't want to. When I first told her on the phone and asked her to write the checks, I told her, I said just as a long story, I'd brush it off and she didn't press anything, but I think she was out somewhere. It wasn't until when I picked up the checks that she started pressuring me and saying, this makes no sense, why are you doing this? You're not dating Katie. And that's when she found out. But your mom is the most high strong out of the whole group, right? And she's old and she worries, right? I don't think she's super high strong, but she does worry about her kids. Don't! No, he's never met her. Well, you said she was quote, notorious for making a big deal out of everything.  I think a lot of moms overreact. Okay.  I mean, you were making enough money, you could tell her to just write checks, couldn't you? Why'd you have to tell her it was an extortion from Latin King gang members? Well, okay, at that time, I didn't know anything about the Latin Kings. But when I told her what happened, I was thinking that, you know what, it actually would be good if someone knows what happened in case I get killed, that at least know what direction to start looking in. So until that point, nobody even knew. So I just, when she started questioning me and questioning me and questioning me, I just said, you know what, I'm gonna tell you, but don't say a thing to dad. Don't say a thing to Wendy. You gotta promise me. I didn't want her to ever talk about this again. And that was the day that she found out is when I got the checks. What she doesn't say on the wire is it's happening again. I was approached by another extortionist today. Does she say that? No, she's talking very carefully. And you say carefully, but isn't carefully the same thing as code? No, they're two totally separate things. You know the difference? You weren't really giving her money for a TV, were you? Giving her money for a TV. This TV is probably gonna be about five. I need you to bring cash tonight. I wish she picked another object on planet Earth other than TV, but TV is code for absolutely nothing. There is no code in this case involving TV and you keep circling and circling and circling TV. You're wrong. Is it a coincidence that the repair of the TV that you bought Wendy as a divorce gift because it was cheaper than hiring a hit man is your sister's alibi for the murder and then your mom brings up TV first call on the wire? It's not an alibi for a murder. She had a broken TV. You gotta ask Lincoln who threw the remote at the TV. Was it a coincidence? Is the TV thing a coincidence? That's what I hear you say. Oh, that the repairman was there that day? Yes, sir. Yeah, that is a coincidence for sure. There's a couple of coincidences in this case.  I said there's a couple of coincidences in this case. I mean, she had people send her an email to go buy a bottle of Bullet Bourbon for their stock to bar party and she was driving to a liquor store to buy a bottle of Bullet Bourbon on that day. That time and her friend sent the email and you have the email and evidence. Like, is that a coincidence? Yeah, coincidences happen. All right, Greg, what do you got? So here's where I start to think we're seeing the real person.  And this is my opinion, anything in front of this attorney, but the minute somebody else gets brought into the equation, he changes. And if you don't believe that, watch his ability to be calm up until they bring up his mother. Now, could it be, hey, it's my mom, I don't want to brought her down shirt. It also could be, hey, my mom's part of this and she may not be as good in front of the audience as I am. In fact, when she starts to poke and prod, his blink rate goes through the roof when she is talking about his mother being high strung and all of that. He doesn't, what I would call a makeup breath. When people are, Chase, you talk about people breathing in their chest versus in their abdomen. What they're doing in effect is they're shallower and shallower breathing and what's happening is a chest is filling up with air down below and not exhaling. You remember when you're teaching people to run and you have to teach them to get rid of all that air. Well, these tops of their lungs are, respiration is just occurring in that top. And every now and then, they'll have to take a deeper breath to try to get some real air.  And this is very different. This would get my attention, really get my attention because his respiration has changed. He's back to that stammering, kind of halting cadence of speech and his brow is up when he's talking. Now I want to know, and I would lean in if this happened in an interrogation I'm talking to somebody and they said, well, Chase, and when I said something about Chase, I did guess who I'm talking to next. I damn sure getting them involved. On the other hand, when they start this whole thing about the TV, I think he genuinely is being honest there. There's a slight smile as eyes are brighter than any other time. And this is real. I don't think it does him any good that he thinks, well, you're on the nothing because what they're trying to make out here is that the TV was in fact a hit that they were trying to put something out on. And he says there's two of these. I think if he had witnessed if any kind of preparation from somebody like us, we would have said, you need to be consistent in everything because if that's consistent, the other isn't and vice versa. So either one of those looks bad because they're two very different displays. And that's what you're always looking for is deviation based on Scott, what you got? In this one, you're right, his cadence is faster overall than everything we see in this series of videos. And when he says coincidences happen, we see anger there. It's small, it's a little micro expression of anger, but we're seeing anger there. Now, this is what happens to somebody when their logic doesn't connect to the real world. In other words, in his head, all of these things that he's thought of about this murder, he thought he could solve them by answering the first initial questions he was asked about the police or asked when the situation happened. He thought he had it figured out, but he didn't. He doesn't understand that, for example, a lot of people say, oh, you can tell somebody's lying right out of the gate. You know, we can't. The odds of one of us, knowing if you're lying or not, if you, when we ask you a question, one question, 50, well yours is 50, 50. The average person's is 50, 50. His hours is about, what, 60, 40? I think that's what it is. And the reason is we know what question to ask next. He didn't think about that. The only thing that differentiates us from anyone else is we know what to ask next and what to look for. And that's it pretty much. He doesn't understand that there's gonna be more questions. He didn't say, this is a pretty big deal. This is gonna be a murder. I've got my initial thing done here, but he didn't say, so what happens when I go to court and they ask this, this, this, this and this? And you're right, Greg. Nobody prepped this guy. Nobody prepped this guy because he's just, he's given lame answers to everything when he does. So I don't think his logic connects with the real world when something happens. So he must have so much money. He's just laying back, not concerned with what other people are thinking or how they approach things or how things work because I think that's what has gotten him in. The further this goes is the deeper he gets in poop. It just gets worse and worse for him. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so just to write on top of those stats there, Scott, you're right. Most people have got 50-50 chance. Statistically, we would be in like 64%. So we've got a 14% better chance than most, but you're absolutely right. The key is what you do with the extra 14%. It's not just, it's knowing that you have that and knowing what you can do with that to ask better questions, better your options, taking more information along the way. So just that one thing there. Second thing is, and this will get me into a lot of trouble or could get me into a lot of trouble, I couldn't get past the whole Latin Kings gang. I just couldn't get past it. I'd never heard of this gang before. As all subscribers know, they're not a crew that I run with on a regular basis.  I mean, if I was gonna make a gang, I wouldn't call them the Latin Kings. It just sounds like they should have an LP out there. Now, apologies to all Latin Kings out there, but I'm just, I'm gonna say it how it is.  I'm gonna be forthright myself. I don't think it's a good, you know, the best name that could have been chosen. And for that reason and that reason alone, I couldn't get any further into this particular clip. I found it, yeah, well, you got there. They're Latin Kings.  So you see, you see my point. Thank you for proving my point because some Latin Kings out there may have been feeling that I was, you know, just overregging it there and being a little bit rude. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just saying this is how it comes across to me. It's just my lived experience of the whole thing. Greg, what do you got on this one? Not me, Mark, they are a real gang. Oh yeah, I know. It's not my turn. One point before, before I hand this to Chase, I think it was. Thank you. One point to make, I agree. While we are 64%, 61%, whatever number you've heard, what I love about doing what we do is that we don't discuss this. And then we come together. And when you hear four of us come up with something, the chances that four people who are at 64% are likely to be way, way, way, way out there is a lot lower. So I think our number goes a lot higher than 64% when we don't compare and we come in the same answer. Chase, what do you got? Unless you watch our episode on Bigfoot when I disagreed with everyone here, I challenge you to go take a look at that stuff there. Was it Bigfoot? I think George Bush invented the best word for what he's doing right now. And what he's doing here is misunderestimating this attorney. So let's talk about this TV really quick. Georgia asked about this TV being some kind of code. And first you see him smile and sit a little more upright and at this point, his behavior could lead us down maybe two paths. He's finally saying something honest here because everything is opening, non-verbal communication. There's a cluster of like, I think five behaviors there or he's got a very detailed point he's comfortable with because he knew the question is gonna come up and he's well rehearsed for this one. Rehearsal does not mean deception or at least he feels well rehearsed for this one. But right then he kind of flosses himself right back into a corner and he makes one statement that very clearly shows to me anyway, that everything here is false. He says, I wish she picked another object on planet Earth other than the TV, but TV is code for nothing. There's no code in this case involving TV. I think that's end quote right there. I think how could she pick another word and how could he wish she picked another word if she wasn't talking about the TV or if she was talking about the TV, what else would she call it? He literally exposes the entire thing right there with the linguistics. The only way that she could pick another word to use his words, because the words meaningless and she could in his own words pick any other object on planet Earth. So he accidentally let us know, I think here in the statement that the TV is irrelevant and that any word could have been used in its place. One of those tapery plays. Mom tells you on that first wire call that the bump involves the two of us referring to yourself and your mom, right? Yes, that's what she said. And would you agree prior to your explanation that that looks pretty incriminating? I think if you don't know what happened, you can assume the worst. Isn't it true that you had to add the bit about confiding your extortion and your mom in order to put that toothpaste back in the tube? No, that's what happened when I got the checks. Otherwise, why would you bring your mom into this? I didn't want to. When I first told her on the phone and asked her to write the checks, I told her, I said, just as a long story, I brushed it off and she didn't press anything, but I think she was out somewhere. It wasn't until when I picked up the checks that she started pressuring me and saying, this makes no sense. Why are you doing this? You're not dating Katie. And that's when she found out. But your mom is the most high strong out of the whole group, right? And she's old and she worries, right? I don't think she's super high strong, but she does worry about her kids. Don't. No, you've never met her. Well, you said she was quote notorious for making a big deal out of everything.  I think a lot of moms overreact. Okay.  I mean, you were making enough money, you could tell her to just write checks, couldn't you? Why'd you have to tell her it was an extortion from Latin King gang members? Well, okay, at that time, I didn't know anything about the Latin Kings. But when I told her what happened, I was thinking that, you know what, it actually would be good if someone knows what happened in case I get killed, that at least know what direction to start looking in. So until that point, nobody even knew. So I just, when she started questioning me and questioning me and questioning me, I just said, you know what, I'm gonna tell you, but don't say a thing to dad. Don't say a thing to Wendy. You gotta promise me. I didn't want her to ever talk about this again. And that was the day that she found out was when I got the checks. What she doesn't say on the wire is, it's happening again. I was approached by another extortionist today. Does she say that? No, she's talking very carefully. And you say carefully, but isn't carefully the same thing as code? No, they're two totally separate things. You know the difference? You weren't really giving her money for a TV, were you? Giving her money for a TV. This TV is probably gonna be about five. I need you to bring cash tonight. I wish she picked another object on planet Earth other than TV. But TV is code for absolutely nothing. There is no code in this case involving TV. And you keep circling and circling and circling TV. You're wrong. Is it a coincidence that the repair of the TV that you bought Wendy as a divorce gift because it was cheaper than hiring a hitman is your sister's alibi for the murder? And then your mom brings up TV first call on the wire? It's not an alibi for a murder. She had a broken TV. You gotta ask Lincoln who threw the remote at the TV. Is it a coincidence? Is the TV thing a coincidence? That's what I hear you say. Oh, that the repair man was there that day? Yes, sir. Yeah, that is a coincidence for sure. There's a couple of coincidences in this case.  I said there's a couple of coincidences in this case. I mean, she had people send her an email to go buy a bottle of Bullet Bourbon for their stock to bar party. And she was driving to a liquor store to buy a bottle of Bullet Bourbon on that day at that time. And her friend sent the email and you have the email and evidence. Like, is that a coincidence? Yeah, coincidences happen. The quote is, if you say if they had any evidence, we'd have already gone to the airport. And I know you're already testified about this, but doesn't innocent person say if they had any evidence? Right, Katie's saying it's the police. And I'm saying we're innocent. They're not gonna have any evidence to show we were part of something that we were part of. If we had any part of this, we'd be going to the airport right now. Isn't it true, doctor, that they're not gonna have any evidence because you were careful? No, because we weren't a part of this. You were smart. No, we weren't a part of this.  I was sure they're not gonna have evidence to show I did something I didn't do. So we're not running to the airport. And you're untouchable, right? No, we didn't do a murder. I wasn't part of a murder. There's no reason to run to the airport. In the next clip, you're discussing what's gonna happen if this person that did the bomb goes to the police. And you're going through all these scenarios, these possibilities. Wait, if he goes to the police? Yeah, the blackmailer goes to the police. They're gonna say, where's the weapon? He's not gonna know. He's just gonna have hearsay, basically. Someone told me they didn't.  Why are you thinking through the possibility of the blackmailer going to the cops if the blackmailer doesn't have any dirt on you to take to the cops? I wasn't thinking about the blackmailer. What I was trying to say is I don't know anything about Sifredo. I don't know anything about this crime. I was trying to tell her that I'm harmless. I don't have any knowledge of what went on. Like the last thing I wanted is that now that she's saying it's the police, is someone to come and kill me and think I'm some kind of loose end. So that's why I'm saying that. But that's not what you're saying.  I don't know if I was saying that someone who knows Louis Rivera was trying to make a point that I don't know anything. And then you suggest what they would have to do is get him to wear a wire and get the person to confess. And that's probably what this could be, an effort to do, right? Well, they're thinking that we were part of a murder. So this was the same thing I said before, is that this is their theory. So this is a police tactic and it could be either a bad guy or the police. And this is how they're pursuing it. Exactly. So as long as you keep your mouth shut, you can get away with murder, right? No, not at all. Isn't that what you told Ryan Fitzpatrick? No, Ryan Fitzpatrick is someone who stole over half a million dollars from it. That's not my question, sir. Did you say that to Ryan Fitzpatrick? No, never. Never at all. Now, Chase, where do you got? All right, this is a pretty really long clip for the behavior panel. So I'm just gonna focus in on a couple of things that I think are noteworthy here. First, Georgia is using the word doctor here very strategically so that the jury understands he's capable of thinking through situations. So she's insinuating the intellectual capacity to wall himself off from these killers. Then he makes two statements that are really, really bad. We didn't do a murder. I wasn't part of a murder. He makes these two statements as one single line of dialogue. So let's take them as they are. He implies he and one other person are innocent and immediately corrects himself to solely focus on just him. That's bad. He doesn't say the murder. He says a murder, no use of the victim's name. There's severity softening, which is a thing that we talk about pretty regularly, using do instead of commit. There's a vagueness spike. There's a spike in a complete lack of detail compared to other things that he said. And it's immediately followed by a breathing shift into his chest, an increase in his blink rate, which is a stress response, a postural retreat when he leans back, another body adjustment in the chair, lip licking and lip compression. These are bad enough on their own, but I would want to call attention to them for the jury to highlight them. So if I was the prosecutor, I would say, I would repeat precisely what he said out loud so that it marks it inside the jury's brain. And maybe just kind of do a little root canal on those just two phrases right there to make sure everything is out in the open. So on the behavioral table of elements, there's a little block in the bottom of each behavior telling you that if someone is being deceptive, when you're most likely gonna see that behavior come up, whether it's before, during, or after somebody's response to a question, and all these babies line up really nicely in this clip. Scott, what do you got? All right. I don't know how far we are into this questioning at this point. Apparently it's been a while. I think Greg, would you say this video was five hours altogether or something? Seven hours, yeah. People are getting bored in there. Look at all the people that are behind them. Look at them looking at their phones. This one of them was looking at her phone.  I think that's the woman on the left if you're looking at this. Then pay attention to that woman that's right on the screen to the right of the attorney. Look at her, she's laughing. She's doing the very same thing that we all do when we're trying not to laugh. That's what she's doing. So something's funny and she's talking to whoever is sitting next to her. So pay attention to that. It must be horrifically boring in there. Now, comparatively, this is the lowest blink rate we've seen so far on Charlie. His eyes are actually wider than they have been up to this point. So something's up. Something's not right here. Everything seems to be a little bit out of place from his normal baseline in here. The shoulder shrugs, when he says, we weren't part of this, are the largest we've seen so far. So she's hitting something in there.  Then he wipes his face with his finger. We talked about adapters earlier. That's what people will do. They just sort of sneak one because when you push right there and you let go, you'll feel that tighten up and relax a little bit and that helps you relax.  I do that all the time for some reason. I'm thinking I'll do that.  So there's something up here. And also his shoulder shrugs, when he says we weren't a part of this, not just being the largest, look how long they last on this. They last longer than the other ones as well. So then he leans forward and he speaks louder than he's spoken so far in anything else about that question concerning Ryan Fitzpatrick. And these shoulder shrugs are huge as well. So something's up here. I think she's hit a nerve and he's starting to feel it. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I think the nerve is when he says if they had any evidence. And when she is very direct about why would they need evidence, that's not what innocent people typically say. I wouldn't say, hey, I'm not going to jail because I don't have any evidence. I'll say I didn't do anything. I wasn't involved. Not, they don't have any evidence. That does sound guilty. Sounds like guilty knowledge. And so you push on it pretty hard. And you can see this because his, we talk about, no matter what we teach you, nothing we teach you can be as powerful as simple observation. And by that, I mean, pay attention to what you see. And when something suddenly goes from calm to this, that means something. When something suddenly goes from this to calm, that means something. And what we're seeing here is a deviation from his baseline. As they start to talk, as she describes, this next clip is about the bump and about you on tape saying they have no evidence. Watch his blink rate increase for that short period of time and watch him move more. He's moving more, he's swiveling more. And he's doing a downright eye accessing right out of the blue. We can't tell why. Is it related to something he did that day that he's remembering or is it that he knows he's in a bind and she's got him on a hot seat? I think that he has a really well-reversed answer to everything he's gonna do. He knows what he's gonna say, but we see more movement, blink rate, respiration, and then that face touch. And Chase, you're pointing to that in your behavioral table elements. And Scott, you're pointing to these things or clusters. There's a big deviation in what we've seen to now. What do we know it means? Nothing, this is a good indicator. Scott, you hit it really earlier. We know what to ask next. And what we think about when we do this in an interrogation room is something called a micro interview. When we see this blip, we then say, okay, we're talking along, boom, boom, boom. We see a blip. We stop talking about everything on either side of the blip and we open up that conversation and say, tell me what you meant by this. Not do you need evidence? Tell me what you meant by evidence. What did that mean to you? Now you drive that harder and harder and harder until you see another blip in his conversation where he says, well, by evidence I meant, I was not connected in any way. Well, hold on. You were connected in some way because people killed. You just keep pushing until you create a point where you find where that stress is coming from. And then you know where the lie is. That's how we find most lies. It's not by simply looking at body language to go, he's lying because he touched his nose. That's not what we're looking for. We're looking for deviation and narrowing it down to a point that we can find exactly what's causing that deviation and that cluster of behaviors. Mark, what do you got? Thanks to Sendbird, our sponsor for this episode. If you want to get 55% off your Sendbird order, then use the code TBP55 at the checkout. And that means you'll get it for a little over $7 a month available in the US and Canada. Yeah, so Scott, I think you're right. No part of it and the shoulders come up in a shrug. Not only do I think they do that, but I think the elbows swing out as well. So no part of it. And he's kind of going, hey, what are you going to do? And it looks confident, even nonchalant. And you might go, in other circumstances, you could go, well, this guy is very confident, no part of it. If it was something not of value, did you go and visit the neighbor? No, there's no part of it. It doesn't really matter. But this really matters. So it's incongruent with that. And especially when other stuff that shouldn't matter as much, it seems it could be non pertinent. He gets so exercised over. Why is he not getting more exercised, more aggressive, more upset over the idea of just not being a part of it? It would be honest in one situation, but because of the situation here, I don't think that's honest action. I think it's probably prepared action, probably rehearsed action. And I think in the next video, we'll get a sense of what the two acts are that are going on here and why they're pretty incongruous with each other. One of those tape replays. The quote is, if you say, if they had any evidence, we'd have already gone to the airport. And I know you're already testified about this, but doesn't innocent person say if they had any evidence? Right, Katie's saying it's the police. And I'm saying that we're innocent. They're not gonna have any evidence to show we were part of something that we were part of. If we had any part of this, we'd be going to the airport right now. Isn't it true, doctor, that they're not gonna have any evidence because you were careful? No, because we weren't a part of this. You were smart. No, we weren't a part of this. You walled yourself off from the killers. I was sure they're not gonna have evidence to show I did something I didn't do. So we're not running to the airport. And you're untouchable, right? No, we didn't do a murder. I wasn't part of a murder. There's no reason to run to the airport. In the next clip, you're discussing what's gonna happen if this person that did the bomb goes to the police. And you're going through all these scenarios, you know, these possibilities. Wait, if he goes to the police? Yeah, the blackmailer goes to the police. They're gonna say, where's the weapon? He's not gonna know. He's just gonna have hearsay, basically. Someone told me they didn't.  Why are you thinking through the possibility of the blackmailer going to the cops if the blackmailer doesn't have any dirt on you to take to the cops? I wasn't thinking about the blackmailer. What I was trying to say is, I don't know anything about Sifredo. I don't know anything about this crime. I was trying to tell her that I'm harmless. I don't have any knowledge of what went on.  So that's why I'm saying that. But that's not what you're saying.  I don't know if I was saying that Louis Rivera, I was trying to make a point that I don't know anything. And then you suggest what they would have to do is get him to wear a wire and get the person to confess. And that's probably what this could be, an effort to do, right? Well, they're thinking that we were part of a murder. So this was the same thing I said before, is that this is their theory. This is a police tactic and it could be either a bad guy or the police. And this is how they're pursuing it. Exactly. So as long as you keep your mouth shut, you can get away with murder, right? No, not at all. Isn't that what you told Ryan Fitzpatrick? No, Ryan Fitzpatrick is someone who stole over half a million dollars from them. That's not my question, sir. Did you say that to Ryan Fitzpatrick? No, never, never at all. Just one more thing. Mark, what have you seen so far up to this point? Yeah, look, I think we've got two elements going on here. One element, the prosecution, who is being demonstrative around the argument that she wants to put forward, entertaining the audience that are there, keeping them engaged, keeping them involved in the story that she wants to tell.  In other situations, that could look like truth-telling. In this particular situation, I don't think it looks right. I think we've got two acts going on. One, the act of the prosecution, which is a great act going on. And the other, the act of somebody guilty trying to look like they're innocent. The two acts don't fit in any way whatsoever. Chase, what have you seen so far? Yeah, I think he severely overestimated his abilities problem. I'm willing to bet he might have even told his attorneys, you know, no, I don't need to go through anything. I've got this all figured out. Maybe that's why they're pissed off and don't want to object. I don't know. But remember, it's not just about what you say, but how you say it. And sometimes what you don't say matters a lot more than all of those things. So here's a tip here. Keep an eye out for logic traps when you're chatting with a person. And it's like in court, logic traps, whether you use them on somebody or they're used on you are a lot like walls, except you don't see them being built. And they can kind of force someone into agreeing to circumstances or behaviors that really paint a narrative that's way different than what they might want. And Greg, thank you for slogging through hours of video to get all this stuff together. I think just the most interesting part of a story whether it's in court or a casual chat isn't just about what's set up loud. Most of the time you get good at some of these skills. It's all about those silent signals that we're giving off all the time. So subscribe, like the channel. It definitely helps us. And it helps this YouTube algorithm that everybody's so fond of. And Greg, what do you think?  And I think part of what she is doing, Mark, to your point is she's driving him to that point. It's pretty contained. In fact, almost too contained and that makes people not like you as much if you're perceived as icy, if you're perceived as arrogant, if you're perceived as narcissistic. Takes a certain amount of narcissism to be successful in lots of things. Could the guy possibly be narcissistic? I don't mean that clinically. I mean that as a personality trait, arrogant, narcissistic, the way we think of it. Well, a good indicator for me would be and the reason I would poke and prod and try to find out in an interview is because the minute some other person is interjected, his mother, boom, we see a behavior change. We see something change dramatically. And I think that's because he knows how to control himself but he may not know how to control others. And that may be the Achilles' heel of his whole argument. I think people who are very contained come across as either very competent or very arrogant or somewhere in between. And if this attorney is going after, you think you're smart enough to beat a murder rap because you had so many cutouts in it, that certainly plays right into her hands. So sometimes your strongest strength is also your greatest weakness. Maybe that's the case here. What we know is he got convicted. We'll find out for how many years and we'll go from there. Scott, what did you see? I think this is a great example of seeing an attorney slowly but surely get up in your business. And I'm sure he thinks about her all the time. I'm sure she made him so mad. He thinks about her all the time because she came on with that confidence that says, you're not getting out of this. There's no way you're getting away with this. I know what happened. They all know what happened. The cops know what happened. That's why you're here. That's what's happening. You've had it because his total thing is he tries to stay locked down. We're all seeing all his little swaying. His eyes get real big at that one point. He's got that weird tick happening and she knows he's stressed and she just keeps slowly but surely just winding him up. And I think she does a fantastic job of that. All right fellas, things are good and we'll see you next time. So what do you got?