I’ve had this domain for several months now and this is the first time I have actually taken the time to create a post. The sheer volume of material across any number of categories to be found online could easily have served as inspiration to get started much sooner. However as fate would have it, the impetus for this initial posting was my online discovery of the recent and very disturbing allegations made by one Issac Kappy.
His story is not one I could easily put out of mind, as with some seemingly sensationalist here-today-gone-tomorrow headlines. In fact at the time of this writing, his story has – remarkably – not really made any headlines to speak of at all. If one looks into it far enough, there does indeed seem to be a groundswell of information sharing and support for his claims and some coverage on perhaps lesser known sites (and there are a few videos posted by him on You Tube) but no major news outlets have as yet acknowledged them. In brief, Kappy, who has worked as an actor and writer (see IMBd page for bio verification: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2367549/) is putting forth some very serious allegations regarding the prevalence of child abuse/pedophilia in Hollywood. Specifically, he is naming the following individuals as offenders – two of whom were former and fairly close friends of his, no less – amongst others:
Seth Green (former friend)
Clare Grant (former friend)
Here is where I was first made aware of the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Znh-WuM9zI
It was a lot to take in. Fast forward to 41:25 and 47:30 for key pieces of information.
And here is a link to Kappy’s Twitter account, with plenty more to be found:
There are damning references there all over the place, from accusations of sexual child abuse by Sarah Ruth Ashcraft leveled against Tom Hanks to strong support from Robbin Young (former actor who worked on the Spielberg film “Night Shift” with Jaid Barrymore) for Kappy’s claim that Steven Spielberg is also a pedophile. Young’s comment on Kappy’s Twitter feed reads:
#pedophile revelation, Isaac @IsaacKappy, about Steven Spielberg is accurate! I acted in the 1982 film ‘Night Shift’ along with Jaid Barrymore (Drew Barrymore’s mother). Spielberg brought (7 year old) Drew to the set, several times, and he was VERY friendly with her.”
Interestingly, I found this link, posted by Isaac himself, which online wanderings of my own unearthed several years ago: http://www.hiphopisread.com/2012/04/secret-meeting-that-changed-rap-music.html . Granted, the contents of that link are not directly related to his current claims but I do marvel at the synchronicity of even the smallest events, as for some reason the memory of my having read this article randomly surfaced a bit earlier today, and before I saw Kappy’s reference to it on his Twitter page. There is even an old photo of a young Anderson Cooper with his mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, posted on the page, with the caption: “The CIA Trained Me”. True enough, in a sense. Cooper did spend two summers there, working as an intern, per his own Wiki page. What caught my eye though, was the unsettling piece of artwork above the bed in that photo. Indeed, the whole tone and content of Kappy’s Twitter page is unsettling at best, outright alarming, heartbreaking and earth-shattering at worst. I would suppose that is to be expected given the nature of the horrific allegations being put forth. A cursory google search of Seth Green’s and Clare Grant’s Twitter pages reveal that they are set on private at the time of this writing, and not open to public view or comment. Not so with Hanks’ page, which is already awash with accusatory (and unanswered) public comments. No public statements addressing any of these allegations have been made by any of the accused.
In the Age of Information, anyone with a computer and an inclination has a voice. So how is one to go about discerning the truth? This is what I ask myself every time I come across such disturbing material. On the one hand, there is a certain amount of research that can be done to unearth convincing enough circumstantial evidence in the face of these types of claims. But research of any kind can be a long and arduous process, and it makes sense to try to establish a sense of whether the material is even worth the time it takes to research to begin with. Along these lines, I spent some time sifting through the results of the following Google search: “How to know if someone is telling the truth”? A flurry of pages presented themselves. The first one I chose was written from the point of view of a former CIA agent (the link is here in its entirety: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/10/how-to-spot-a-liar.aspx):
Here were some instructive pointers:
So make a point to ignore truthful behavior, instead focusing on deceptive ones. Meanwhile, recognize tactics of evasiveness, which are major clues that a person is not being candid, such as:
- Failure to provide information asked for — does the person go on at length but not answer the question you asked?
- Failure to deny. “The most important thing to the honest person is giving you that answer, denying if they didn’t do something. The truth is their biggest ally,” Carnicero says.
- Use of exclusionary qualifiers, such as saying “for the most part,” “fundamentally” or “not really.” These beg for a follow-up question to reveal what the person is leaving out.
Aggression Is Often a Sign of Lying, as Are ‘Convincing’ Statements
When evaluating a person’s trustworthiness, “some behaviors weigh more than others,” according to Carnicero. “Aggression is one of those.” If you question your child whether he’s taking drugs and his immediate response is one of anger, it’s a major red flag. Likewise, if you’ve had a theft at your company, and the employee you’re questioning attacks you for asking about the theft.
“If you have somebody who jumps down your throat because you ask them a question — I don’t even care if it’s your kid … you got a problem,” she says. They may also attack a third party, such as the company itself for not providing enough security to prevent thefts in the first place. Along these lines, demonstrating an inappropriate level of concern is another telltale sign that someone is not telling the truth.
For example, if they brush off an important question as inconsequential, smile at an inappropriate time or get angry for seemingly no reason, they’re likely lying. Carnicero also stresses the importance of differentiating between convincing statements and those intended to convey information — the former being a sign of lying. Let’s say you ask someone if they stole something.
If the person launches into a long response about their good employment history and trustworthiness, those are convincing statements that, while they sound true, signal a lie. Simply saying “no” is conveying information that is likely a truthful response. Carnicero says, “A convincing statement is the strongest arrow that any person is going to have in their quiver. Saying ‘I’m a good person,’ ‘I’m a good worker’ … when somebody’s trying to convince you of something” rather than convey information, it’s a strong sign of a lie.
Paying attention to small details can also reveal a lie — like saying “I wouldn’t do that” versus “I didn’t do that.” The former — “wouldn’t” — is often a lie. “We have to listen for didn’t,” Carnicero says. Invoking religion is another tactic liars often use to draw you in and manage your perceptions of them, saying things like “I swear on a stack of bibles.”
Other subtle signs include “perception qualifiers” such as “honestly,” “to tell you the truth” and “quite frankly,” which are used to verbally “dress up a lie.” When combined with clusters of other deceptive behaviors, these can help you to spot a lie.
Nonverbal Signs of Deceit
A person’s nonverbal cues are also important to hone in on when evaluating whether or not they’re lying. Carnicero recommends paying attention to the following nonverbal cues:2
•Behavioral pause: If you ask a person a vague question, such as what were you doing on this date years ago, it’s reasonable to expect a pause before they respond. But if you ask, did you rob a bank 10 years ago to this day, they should respond immediately. In the latter case, a delay is a sign of lying.
•Verbal/nonverbal disconnect: If a person nods their head while saying no, or shakes their head “no” while saying yes, this disconnect is considered a deceptive behavior (except in certain cultures in which nodding doesn’t mean yes).
•Anchor point movements: Another sign of a lie is movement in an “anchor point,” such as feet on the floor, arms on a desk or even a dangling foot if a person’s legs are crossed.
•Grooming gestures: Straightening a tie or other piece of clothing, fixing hair, adjusting glasses or fiddling with shirt cuffs can be subconscious ways that people try to quell their anxiety and are often a sign of a lie. Clearing of the throat or swallowing prior to answering are also considered indicators of deceptiveness.
•Hand-to-face movements: If a person put their hand to their mouth, licks their lips, pulls on their ear or otherwise touches their face or head, it’s another deceptive behavior. Parade noted:3
“The reason goes back to simple high school science. You’ve asked a question, and the question creates a spike in anxiety because a truthful response would be incriminating.
That, in turn, triggers the autonomic nervous system to go to work to dissipate the anxiety, draining blood from the surfaces of the face, the ears, and the extremities — which can create a sensation of cold or itchiness. Without the person even realizing it, his hands are drawn to those areas, or there’s a wringing or rubbing of the hands.”
Spotting a Liar Isn’t an Exact Science
While it isn’t always easy to determine when you’re being lied to, following Carnicero’s guidelines can certainly help. You can find more details, including many anecdotes that show the guidelines in action, in Carnicero’s book “Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception.” Being able to decipher the truth can be life changing when it comes to your professional and personal life, and you can even use it to save yourself money and avoid getting ripped off.
So, using the basic criteria provided above, via a reliable and experienced source, here is my assessment (taking into consideration that Isaac Kappy is the accuser and not the accused):
Failure to provide information asked for – Kappy is pretty forthcoming about providing information as it is directly asked by interviewer Nathan Stolpman, in the youtube link mentioned in the beginning of this post. He does not seem to over or under-embellish his answers, from what I observed. He does provide a few word-for-word examples, but is not at all hesitant to point out instances where he cannot remember exactly what was said due to the emotionally fraught nature of the situation in which he found himself.
Failure to deny – This criteria is not really a useful measure, as Kappy is not the accused.
Use of exclusionary qualifiers – I don’t hear him use these all too much. Once or twice I heard the much overused term “basically”, but not during moments where key information was being questioned.
Behavioral pause – I was not able to discern any telling pauses suggestive of red flags when presented with direct questions by Stolpman. He paused where it seemed to make sense to pause, but there was no overt “stopping and starting”, which is often observable when people are clearly gearing up to create some sort of fabrication.
Verbal/nonverbal disconnect – I did not notice any of this. I will say that for the most part Kappy was fairly stone-faced during the interview, but this seems not out of the ordinary given the nature of the discussion.
Anchor point movements – Was not able to clearly discern this, especially as feet were not visible in video footage.
Grooming gestures – There were several of these to be observed, but how much of it was due to anxiety/nervousness about the nature of the material he was presenting versus a direct by-product of any deliberate lying would be conjecture, objectively speaking. Having said that, my conjecture is that he was indeed distressed, or at least appeared to be.
Hand-to-face movements – Yes, there were some of these as well, and I place them in the same category as the above.
As for how to discern if one is telling the truth (as opposed to whether or not they are lying), a cursory search on that revealed material offered by this site:
And here is a complete list of the criteria from that link along again with my associated assessments:
1. Their Story Is Longer & Detailed
Well, considering that Kappy spent over an hour delving into not only the specifics of the story (the hidden room behind the bookcase, the stuffed toys on one of the upper floors) as well as the backdrop leading up to it, one cannot claim that the story is lacking in detail.
2. They’re Holding The Right Amount Of Eye Contact
This measure is not altogether too helpful in this case, as the interview was not conducted face to face.
3. Their Breathing Is Steady
I observed no visible change in breathing during the interview, other than the moment during which Kappy was describing exactly how and when he learned the worst from Seth Green firsthand – and this seemed to be more of a demonstration of how the air was sucked out of him, so to speak, at the time.
4. Their Voice Is Steady, Too
Voice was indeed steady, and generally only hesitant where it seemed understandable to hesitate (such as when Stolpman asks Kappy if he is comfortable naming other individuals in whom he has confided, by way of further evidence to support his claims).
5. They Neglect To Blame Negative Outside Forces
It seems there is a balanced approach to this. Kappy ultimately takes responsibility for speaking about this disturbing subject matter while also admitting that there was a period of time during which he did not come forward, due to the nature of the surrounding environmental factors (fears of local police collusion/corruption, for instance). Likewise, he fully recognizes the heinousness of the crime he is shedding light on, while acknowledging that many of the perpetrators were once also victims, imploring them to “tell the truth”. He clearly shows signs of grappling with the fact that these were people he once considered to be friends.
6. You Haven’t Noticed Them Touching Their Nose
I did not observe this at any time during the interview.
7. They’re Not Covering Their Throat
I did not observe this at any time during the interview.
8. Their Rate Of Blinking Doesn’t Change
Blinking rate seemed steady.
9. They’re Speaking In Complete Sentences
10. There’s No Fake Smile In Sight
Indeed there are really no smiles at all, which would not be surprising given the nature of the subject matter under discussion.
11. Your Instincts Are Telling You It’s The Truth
This is the one measure that is truly subjective – but I think it can also be honed. I personally believe that one way to develop stronger instincts in this area is to be truthful in one’s own life dealings to the greatest extent possible. There is also much to be said for exhaustive research and cross-referencing across a variety of sources, and observing whether or not any discernible patterns arise. For example, what types of people fall into the supporting or opposing camps of an individual’s claim? And how clearly are those lines drawn (or blurred)? Has the judgement of any of the people on either side been compromised in any way? (ex. – via substance abuse, former criminal activity, or perhaps excessively poor behavior?) Do the same names and themes keep emerging over the course of research on any given topic? What might these patterns be suggestive of? Another way to discern truth is through direct experience. In this particular case, a child who has endured abuse will readily recognize truth in the accounts of others who may have been similarly victimized. Likewise, an expert in any given subject matter will be able to much more readily assess truthfulness in statements on that subject matter more so than a layperson. I have also often found that reading the comments section of any given site to be highly instructive and sometimes even more helpful than the posts to which they are in response.
It can be difficult indeed, to be 100% sure of anything, barring direct involvement in a given situation. However, one can establish a measure of reasonable assurance, if one is willing and able to spend the requisite time to question assumed paradigms, digestible sound bites/bromides, and can endure a degree of personal discomfort often necessary to allow for a fuller picture to come into focus.
Is Isaac Kappy telling the truth? Part of the answer to that question lies in how much one is willing to psychologically and perhaps physically risk in order to find out. Physical evidence can unfortunately be quite easily compromised or destroyed, and virtual evidence (digital photos for instance) can be manipulated or deleted entirely. We are therefore challenged, as we have always been, to train and discipline ourselves to search more deeply – with both an outward and inward orientation, to uncover the hidden truths buried within.
UPDATE as of the evening of 8/1: TMZ posted this article about the Seth Green/Clare Grant allegations:
Of note, neither Seth Green, Clare Grant, nor Paris Jackson have openly commented for themselves in any public way about the matter, as of this writing. The TMZ piece offers no direct statements from any of them. Seth’s and Clare’s Twitter profiles are still private, while Paris’ Twitter is public and redirects followers to her Instagram page, also public. No mention of the affair is made on either of these. TMZ’s account of the “choking” accusation is threadbare, with no mention of who actually is bringing forth the accusation.
Here is their statement: “Additionally, we’re told he allegedly grabbed Paris by the throat about a month ago during a game night party.”
Curiously, these handwritten letters (ostensibly by Isaac), were included in the article:
Perhaps inclusion of the letters (written in all caps and rather sloppy handwriting) was meant to support the story of Kappy’s seemingly unhinged obsession with Green and Grant, as reported by TMZ. However upon actual reading, it has just the opposite effect, given it does more to support Kappy’s allegations than TMZ’s.
The Santa Monica Observer had this to say:
The closing comments:
“Spielberg is considered one of the founding pioneers of the New Hollywood era and one of the most popular directors and producers in film history. Allegations of sexual misconduct against him, if verifiable, would be explosive, and would make the Weinstein affair look small in comparison. Whether or not any of the many allegations contained in the 48 minute video are true or not, one thing can be said for certain: Isaac Kappy will never work in this town again.”
Notably, the SM Observer made no mention of the Jackson “choking incident”, nor did it mention anything about Kappy’s alleged obsession/harassment of Green or Grant.
As is the case with the TMZ article, no direct comments were provided by any of those named in the Observer. Kappy, for his part, responded with this on Twitter:
@tmz, this article is loaded with factual errors. Please respond and we can address. Thank you.”
As well, he appeared in an interview here, where he specifically responds to the Paris Jackson accusation (at 2:55):