IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 31st August 2020, 01:02 PM   #3121
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You guys really need to watch this one. It is the Behaviour Panel - expert body language profilers, statement analysts and a criminal interrogator.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Oh, brother. Classic. When the actual evidence doesn't support your case, fall back on the pseudoscience of body language and look at how she tilted her head, how she looked to the right, how she glanced down. That there is some strong evidence, gurrrrl!

Next up: kill a chicken and look at its entrails! Or look into the defendant's eyes! The eyes never lie!

Quote:
The witness on the stand pauses before answering, then looks briefly up and to the right while giving a response. While listening to the next question, she places a finger over her lips, angles her head slightly, and raises one shoulder a bit higher than the other. Does any of that mean anything? To some who hold themselves out as nonverbal communication experts, each gesture and movement can be broken out and interpreted as having a distinct and defined meaning. But, by and large, those interpretations will not be supported by valid and replicable science. That doesn’t always stop practical communicators — including attorneys, witnesses, and even jurors — from putting stock in the idea that our nonverbal postures, movements and gestures carry definite meaning. Even the phrase “body language” implies that physical action can be interpreted with precision comparable to verbal speech. The problem is that it cannot.
Quote:
Another chestnut is the belief that looking up and to the right indicates that someone is lying. I have talked to jurors who believe that this is established scientific fact. But it isn’t. It is a common belief promoted by practitioners of a perspective called “Neuro-Linguistic Programming” or “NLP,” but it has never received scientific support, and several years ago, a study (Wiseman et al., 2012) effectively refuted it.

Quote:
The bottom line, according to Denault, is that “Science has shown that specific nonverbal behaviors with similar unequivocal meanings or interpretations across situations are very rare.”
https://www.persuasivelitigator.com/...doscience.html
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st August 2020, 01:06 PM   #3122
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You guys really need to watch this one. It is the Behaviour Panel - expert body language profilers, statement analysts and a criminal interrogator.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Not this again?

Yes, there are these types of professionals out there. None of the reputable ones would claim to draw the conclusions that guilter-nutters insist they draw about this case.

The only reason to drag this in - yet, again - is to avoid answering the myriad of questions guilter-nutters leave unanswered.

Like:

1) compose a timeline based on evidence

2) cite one, just one, forensic-DNA expert who supports the original prosecution's DNA expert.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st August 2020, 01:40 PM   #3123
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, brother. Classic. When the actual evidence doesn't support your case, fall back on the pseudoscience of body language and look at how she tilted her head, how she looked to the right, how she glanced down. That there is some strong evidence, gurrrrl!

Next up: kill a chicken and look at its entrails! Or look into the defendant's eyes! The eyes never lie!

https://www.persuasivelitigator.com/...doscience.html
We should thank Vixen for what she concedes by posting this.

The main use of the soft behavioural sciences is to help investigators when tbe evidence/forensics is so spotty or weak that it doesn't point anywhere.

So thank you to Vixen for conceding that, although the reputable forensics actually do point exclusively to Rudy Guede.

What law enforcement never does is use this stuff once a hard case can be made. It's only to narrow a large pool of suspects to a more manageable number, so that investigators can focus their efforts. It does not guarantee that the perp will be found in that reduced pool.

When this canard was first pulled out on the old PMF sites, very soon an argument on hard evidence was started. It, then, completely escaped the guilter-nutters that arguing hard evidence, means that there's no need for profiling!!!!

Besides, the stock in trade of profiling is past behaviour of the individuals in the large suspect pool. Neither RS nor AK would ever make the cut in an expert behavioural analysis to reduce a large group of unknowns to a smaller, more manageable group.

Strangely, Rudy Guede **would** in all probability make the cut. Then again, once his DNA was found in the victim, and once he'd been serruptitously recorded confessing to being there at the time, as well as clearing AK, there's no reason to investigate others anyway.

Besides John Douglas, FBI profiler in chief has written about this case. It's his view that neither AK nor RS fit "the profile", even if the forensics had not been conclusive.

But here we go again. One. More. Time.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st August 2020, 05:25 PM   #3124
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Not this again?

Yes, there are these types of professionals out there. None of the reputable ones would claim to draw the conclusions that guilter-nutters insist they draw about this case.

The only reason to drag this in - yet, again - is to avoid answering the myriad of questions guilter-nutters leave unanswered.

Like:

1) compose a timeline based on evidence

2) cite one, just one, forensic-DNA expert who supports the original prosecution's DNA expert.


LMAO at these "body language experts"!

This sort of thing crops up, not infrequently, on various of the pay-tv documentary channels here in UK. And it's things like "body language and verbal analysis experts examine interviews given by XYZ", where XYZ is a convicted high-profile criminal, and usually a murderer.

And here we come straight on to that one hugely important point:

These "experts" know that the person has been convicted and sentenced before they sit down to do their on-camera "analysis"
.

So they'll come out with stuff like "Ah, see here where XYZ looks quickly to the side as the name of the victim is mentioned: this is indicative of him wanting to erase the memory of the victim, because he knows he killed her", and so on.

There's absolutely zero control factor (in scientific-experiment terms). Instead, the "experts" know full well what the person they're "analysing" provably did. Hello Confirmation Bias My Old Friend.........

And such is the case with this bilge about Knox. I suspect that those involved think/know that they'll get a lot more click-through and viral spread if their "analysis" indicates Knox's guilt. And in any case, it doesn't take a genius to realise that "body language experts conclude that Knox isn't giving off any subliminal signs of guilt" is, erm, not very provocative or sensational.

In conclusion: this "analysis" isn't worth the bandwidth it's written on.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st August 2020, 05:52 PM   #3125
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And here we come straight on to that one hugely important point:

These "experts" know that the person has been convicted and sentenced before they sit down to do their on-camera "analysis"
.

In conclusion: this "analysis" isn't worth the bandwidth it's written on.
You're making the point that John Douglas once tried to make.

By 2014, Douglas (the father of FBI behavioural analysis) was writing openly (sometimes alone, sometimes in anthologies with others) about the obviousness of RS and AK's innocence. Before that, he'd learned the hard way what it was like to try to "discuss the case" with guilters. (BTW - "guilters" was a term he eventually embraced.)

I used to have the link on my harddrive - but cannot find it. So for transparency, the following is from memory, so take it for what its worth.

Douglas had once, early on, entered into a dialogue with a guilter, the dialogue being what behavioural analysis would bring to this case. He wrote that he finally gave up, because this one guilter simply would not stick to the point - what behavioural analysis would imply about the Kercher case - who should investigators suspect, and who should be left to last to investigate.

the 2 things which Douglas said forced him to abandon rational "debate" with a guilter.....
1) after a back and forth that past behaviour is the best indicator of the kind of behaviours associated with certain crimes, Douglas's opponent thought he'd given the most definitive counter to Douglas's views.....

...... "Every criminal commits a crime for the first time", and....

....... "often that first timer exhibits no past behaviour. Yet they're guilty, they'd done the deed".

2) that despite the points Douglas was making, the guilter fell back on, "well the evidence overwhelmingly points to her guilt".
Douglas's point? If the evidence points to her guilt, why are we having this discussion about behavioural profiling? Indeed, Douglas continued, if he had been interviewing her in prison as a convicted murderer, what he'd find about her (in terms of her background) is that she does not fit the profile. She'd be an outlier.

But you would **start** a discussion on behavioural analysis solely when you don't know who the perp is. You don't start with Behavioural Analysis, then make a sideways shift to, "the evidence" because if the evidence is clear, you don't need behavioural analysis. It couldn't be any more obvious than that.

What Douglas wrote was - if you know who did the crime, why the need for behavioural analysis? Why are we even talking about it as relevant?

So it is with the folks who claim to bring Statement Analysis, Blink Analysis, Gesture Analysis, or Body Language Analysis to bear on this. Those folks already know that AK is guilty, then they go out to find Statement, Blink, Gesture, or Body Language cues to......

...... you guessed it......

.... prove that she is guilty.

If she is truly not guilty, she would still have those same Statement, Blink, Gesture, or Body language habits.

The true test of any of this is to put the perp in a line-up with 100 other people, and apply those tests as a double blind experiment. Come get me when those tests diverge on to one of the 100, where you're not sure any of them are guilty. Indeed, if it converges on 5 out of the 500, then investigate those five. But investigating those 5 on the basis of those soft-sciences is only a starting point - not an end point. It could very well be that all 5 are stone cold innocent.

Which is the point to which John Douglas eventually came. It is a waste of time to discuss these soft-subjects with people who already "know" she is guilty.

So my view is that Douglas simply threw his hands up, and by 2014 simply wrote about the obviousness of her innocence - not on and analysis of her behaviours, but on the obviousness of the evidence.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 31st August 2020 at 05:56 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st August 2020, 05:59 PM   #3126
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Excellent post, LJ. I had to laugh when that video started out with claiming that these guys are four of the world's greatest experts on body language. Says who? Them? They have a show on the YouTube channel for chrissakes!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st August 2020, 06:31 PM   #3127
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Bill, when you expect or want to see something, you will see it. Thus it is with how people interpret things. A simple smile becomes a smirk. A comforting hug and kiss become canoodling. Wind blown hair becomes disheveled hair. And so it goes.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st September 2020, 11:39 PM   #3128
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You're making the point that John Douglas once tried to make.

By 2014, Douglas (the father of FBI behavioural analysis) was writing openly (sometimes alone, sometimes in anthologies with others) about the obviousness of RS and AK's innocence. Before that, he'd learned the hard way what it was like to try to "discuss the case" with guilters. (BTW - "guilters" was a term he eventually embraced.)

I used to have the link on my harddrive - but cannot find it. So for transparency, the following is from memory, so take it for what its worth.

Douglas had once, early on, entered into a dialogue with a guilter, the dialogue being what behavioural analysis would bring to this case. He wrote that he finally gave up, because this one guilter simply would not stick to the point - what behavioural analysis would imply about the Kercher case - who should investigators suspect, and who should be left to last to investigate.

the 2 things which Douglas said forced him to abandon rational "debate" with a guilter.....
1) after a back and forth that past behaviour is the best indicator of the kind of behaviours associated with certain crimes, Douglas's opponent thought he'd given the most definitive counter to Douglas's views.....

...... "Every criminal commits a crime for the first time", and....

....... "often that first timer exhibits no past behaviour. Yet they're guilty, they'd done the deed".

2) that despite the points Douglas was making, the guilter fell back on, "well the evidence overwhelmingly points to her guilt".
Douglas's point? If the evidence points to her guilt, why are we having this discussion about behavioural profiling? Indeed, Douglas continued, if he had been interviewing her in prison as a convicted murderer, what he'd find about her (in terms of her background) is that she does not fit the profile. She'd be an outlier.

But you would **start** a discussion on behavioural analysis solely when you don't know who the perp is. You don't start with Behavioural Analysis, then make a sideways shift to, "the evidence" because if the evidence is clear, you don't need behavioural analysis. It couldn't be any more obvious than that.

What Douglas wrote was - if you know who did the crime, why the need for behavioural analysis? Why are we even talking about it as relevant?

So it is with the folks who claim to bring Statement Analysis, Blink Analysis, Gesture Analysis, or Body Language Analysis to bear on this. Those folks already know that AK is guilty, then they go out to find Statement, Blink, Gesture, or Body Language cues to......

...... you guessed it......

.... prove that she is guilty.

If she is truly not guilty, she would still have those same Statement, Blink, Gesture, or Body language habits.

The true test of any of this is to put the perp in a line-up with 100 other people, and apply those tests as a double blind experiment. Come get me when those tests diverge on to one of the 100, where you're not sure any of them are guilty. Indeed, if it converges on 5 out of the 500, then investigate those five. But investigating those 5 on the basis of those soft-sciences is only a starting point - not an end point. It could very well be that all 5 are stone cold innocent.

Which is the point to which John Douglas eventually came. It is a waste of time to discuss these soft-subjects with people who already "know" she is guilty.

So my view is that Douglas simply threw his hands up, and by 2014 simply wrote about the obviousness of her innocence - not on and analysis of her behaviours, but on the obviousness of the evidence.
One of the guys was a trained army interrogator. Interrogation is important. That is why every country in the world has interrogators. Criminals are interrogated. Bankrupts and dodgy directors are interrogated by people who've passed exams in being...examiners, spies are interrogated. Why? because interrogation can get to the truth.

The army interrogator used his skills in having years of experience in court martial (_?). When people commit an offence or want to hide their assets from creditors they do and say all sorts of things to conceal their dishonesty. These guys are trained in how to spot deception. This is how you catch the money launderers, the confidence tricksters, the fraudsters: they all adopt methods of deception and this includes faking body language, careful construction of the stories they tell - a script - attempts to ingratiate themselves with the listener, faking innocence.

The expert in statement analysis barely knew Meredith's or Filomena's names, he was solely relying in his long expertise studying experts to whom he referenced on several occasions. For example, he mentioned how people try to distance themselves from the scene by using terms such as, 'I remembered I...' or they bring in extra verbs. For example, instead of saying, I went into Filomena's room and the window was broken with glass everywhere, Knox does a long spiel about how 'I saw...this... and I saw...that..' adding an internal speil about her internal thoughts as though to authenticate her narrative, 'I thought "that's strange"'. As Chase Hughes explained, when you are in a car crash you don't say, 'the car in front slammed on its brakes and I felt scared and thought oh that's odd', you just relate the facts. On speaking about Filomena's room, Knox deflected away from it completely and started rattling on about how clean and tidy Laura was. 'Laura's room was unruffled. I thought that was strange as Filomena's room had been ruffled but Laura is exceptionally clean and tidy - giggle giggle -' erm, hello? this is a murder investigation and they want to hear about the murder not a digression into your roommates ******* cleanliness habits.

The guy who specialises in facial body language only, Mark Bowden - the terribly camp English guy - had never even heard of her and knew nothing of the case but after video three he was astounded. 'According to this woman, there are two types of people in this world: the CLEAN and the NOT CLEAN'.

It seems the courts, John Kercher and the British birds were on the right track regarding Knox and Kercher falling out over Knox' cleanliness habits or lack thereof. By the final video, Bowden's comment is he was indiffferent towards the first two or three videos but by the fifth, his conclusion was, 'totally 100% a LIAR', just from her facial expressions, microexpressions, rolling eyeballs, grim smiles - 'smiles of fear /terror' he called them, raised eyebrows, direction of gaze.

The army interrogator guy was saying that every time she gulped he would have seen it as a 'red flag' were he interrogating her and would push her at these junctures plus every time she changed the pronoun from 'I' to 'we' - suddenly we have team effort. The other guy thought her claim Raffaele kicked the door twice and then gave up, absolutely pathetic. He said any real guy would be determined to break down that door and save the lady in distress not give up. (And we know that is exactly what Luca Altieri did when he arrived.)


Body language is a fine art. It can really help you understand what makes a person tick. You can tell when they are lying, when they are upset, excited, deceptive, open, hostile, aggressive, scared, nervous, confident, etc., etc and content analysis is also revealing.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

Last edited by Vixen; 1st September 2020 at 11:44 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 12:05 AM   #3129
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
One of the guys was a trained army interrogator. Interrogation is important. That is why every country in the world has interrogators. Criminals are interrogated. Bankrupts and dodgy directors are interrogated by people who've passed exams in being...examiners, spies are interrogated. Why? because interrogation can get to the truth.

The army interrogator used his skills in having years of experience in court martial (_?). When people commit an offence or want to hide their assets from creditors they do and say all sorts of things to conceal their dishonesty. These guys are trained in how to spot deception. This is how you catch the money launderers, the confidence tricksters, the fraudsters: they all adopt methods of deception and this includes faking body language, careful construction of the stories they tell - a script - attempts to ingratiate themselves with the listener, faking innocence.

The expert in statement analysis barely knew Meredith's or Filomena's names, he was solely relying in his long expertise studying experts to whom he referenced on several occasions. For example, he mentioned how people try to distance themselves from the scene by using terms such as, 'I remembered I...' or they bring in extra verbs. For example, instead of saying, I went into Filomena's room and the window was broken with glass everywhere, Knox does a long spiel about how 'I saw...this... and I saw...that..' adding an internal speil about her internal thoughts as though to authenticate her narrative, 'I thought "that's strange"'. As Chase Hughes explained, when you are in a car crash you don't say, 'the car in front slammed on its brakes and I felt scared and thought oh that's odd', you just relate the facts. On speaking about Filomena's room, Knox deflected away from it completely and started rattling on about how clean and tidy Laura was. 'Laura's room was unruffled. I thought that was strange as Filomena's room had been ruffled but Laura is exceptionally clean and tidy - giggle giggle -' erm, hello? this is a murder investigation and they want to hear about the murder not a digression into your roommates ******* cleanliness habits.

The guy who specialises in facial body language only, Mark Bowden - the terribly camp English guy - had never even heard of her and knew nothing of the case but after video three he was astounded. 'According to this woman, there are two types of people in this world: the CLEAN and the NOT CLEAN'.

It seems the courts, John Kercher and the British birds were on the right track regarding Knox and Kercher falling out over Knox' cleanliness habits or lack thereof. By the final video, Bowden's comment is he was indiffferent towards the first two or three videos but by the fifth, his conclusion was, 'totally 100% a LIAR', just from her facial expressions, microexpressions, rolling eyeballs, grim smiles - 'smiles of fear /terror' he called them, raised eyebrows, direction of gaze.

The army interrogator guy was saying that every time she gulped he would have seen it as a 'red flag' were he interrogating her and would push her at these junctures plus every time she changed the pronoun from 'I' to 'we' - suddenly we have team effort. The other guy thought her claim Raffaele kicked the door twice and then gave up, absolutely pathetic. He said any real guy would be determined to break down that door and save the lady in distress not give up. (And we know that is exactly what Luca Altieri did when he arrived.)


Body language is a fine art. It can really help you understand what makes a person tick. You can tell when they are lying, when they are upset, excited, deceptive, open, hostile, aggressive, scared, nervous, confident, etc., etc and content analysis is also revealing.
The longest word salad in a long time.

Alleging everything, demonstrating nothing. It's why John Douglas gave up "debating" such people. You've missed the point completely - why rely on state analysis or body language if you believe the hard forensics are solid?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 03:55 AM   #3130
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
The Look of Pure Evil

If this video still of Amanda Knox recounting how she came across the murder scene doesn't chill your blood...


https://youtu.be/YYu6l7TQeLg
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2020-09-02 (10).jpg (27.5 KB, 6 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 04:04 AM   #3131
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If this video still of Amanda Knox recounting how she came across the murder scene doesn't chill your blood...


https://youtu.be/YYu6l7TQeLg
It's a Rorschach. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Although it is a great money saver, burning witches at the stake, based on their appearance in a still photo. Why pay for an expensive trial?

Why put together a timeline of the crime which supports her guilt when you can just look at a picture?

Why name one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with the now discredited, original court forensics when you can just look at a picture?

Courts are expensive. Pitchforks and tiki-torches are available at your local hardware.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 06:39 AM   #3132
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

The guy who specialises in facial body language only, Mark Bowden - the terribly camp English guy - had never even heard of her and knew nothing of the case but after video three he was astounded.
IF Bowden said this, the "totally 100% a liar" is him.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 07:08 AM   #3133
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
One of the guys was a trained army interrogator. Interrogation is important. That is why every country in the world has interrogators. Criminals are interrogated. Bankrupts and dodgy directors are interrogated by people who've passed exams in being...examiners, spies are interrogated. Why? because interrogation can get to the truth.

The army interrogator used his skills in having years of experience in court martial (_?). When people commit an offence or want to hide their assets from creditors they do and say all sorts of things to conceal their dishonesty. These guys are trained in how to spot deception. This is how you catch the money launderers, the confidence tricksters, the fraudsters: they all adopt methods of deception and this includes faking body language, careful construction of the stories they tell - a script - attempts to ingratiate themselves with the listener, faking innocence.

The expert in statement analysis barely knew Meredith's or Filomena's names, he was solely relying in his long expertise studying experts to whom he referenced on several occasions. For example, he mentioned how people try to distance themselves from the scene by using terms such as, 'I remembered I...' or they bring in extra verbs. For example, instead of saying, I went into Filomena's room and the window was broken with glass everywhere, Knox does a long spiel about how 'I saw...this... and I saw...that..' adding an internal speil about her internal thoughts as though to authenticate her narrative, 'I thought "that's strange"'. As Chase Hughes explained, when you are in a car crash you don't say, 'the car in front slammed on its brakes and I felt scared and thought oh that's odd', you just relate the facts. On speaking about Filomena's room, Knox deflected away from it completely and started rattling on about how clean and tidy Laura was. 'Laura's room was unruffled. I thought that was strange as Filomena's room had been ruffled but Laura is exceptionally clean and tidy - giggle giggle -' erm, hello? this is a murder investigation and they want to hear about the murder not a digression into your roommates ******* cleanliness habits.

The guy who specialises in facial body language only, Mark Bowden - the terribly camp English guy - had never even heard of her and knew nothing of the case but after video three he was astounded. 'According to this woman, there are two types of people in this world: the CLEAN and the NOT CLEAN'.

It seems the courts, John Kercher and the British birds were on the right track regarding Knox and Kercher falling out over Knox' cleanliness habits or lack thereof. By the final video, Bowden's comment is he was indiffferent towards the first two or three videos but by the fifth, his conclusion was, 'totally 100% a LIAR', just from her facial expressions, microexpressions, rolling eyeballs, grim smiles - 'smiles of fear /terror' he called them, raised eyebrows, direction of gaze.

The army interrogator guy was saying that every time she gulped he would have seen it as a 'red flag' were he interrogating her and would push her at these junctures plus every time she changed the pronoun from 'I' to 'we' - suddenly we have team effort. The other guy thought her claim Raffaele kicked the door twice and then gave up, absolutely pathetic. He said any real guy would be determined to break down that door and save the lady in distress not give up. (And we know that is exactly what Luca Altieri did when he arrived.)


Body language is a fine art. It can really help you understand what makes a person tick. You can tell when they are lying, when they are upset, excited, deceptive, open, hostile, aggressive, scared, nervous, confident, etc., etc and content analysis is also revealing.
Vixen,

Thanks for summarizing the video so I don't have to bother to watch it. If you've hit the high notes of the long video there isn't a whole lot to it.

To the extent that these guys have any value in a criminal interrogation, they are not participating in live interrogations or even looking at interrogation tapes. They are looking at interviews from news or entertainment TV shows. Which of them were live interviews? Which of them were highly edited taped interviews? Of the taped interviews, how much of the interviews were not viewed? Are any of these factors relevant to the analysis? Do they have evidence to demonstrate their ability to analyze this data?

To the extent that these guys have any skills relevant to examining dodgy directors, spies, money launderers, confidence tricksters, fraudsters or for that matter murderers under typical circumstances they are dealing with an atypical situation here. Amanda is either a murderess or she was present for the discovery of her murdered room mate, investigated for the crime, falsely convicted and spent years in prison all in a foreign country. To what extent should these experts take these factors into account in their analysis. To what extent do they? Here, these experts apparent ignorance of the background and history of this case may work against them. Do they have any evidence to demonstrate their ability to analyze this data under these unusual circumstances? Or do they have any evidence to demonstrate that these factors are irrelevant?

'According to this woman, there are two types of people in this world: the CLEAN and the NOT CLEAN' - what exactly is astounding about this?

"facial expressions, microexpressions, rolling eyeballs, grim smiles - 'smiles of fear /terror' he called them, raised eyebrows, direction of gaze" - to what extent does their analysis take into account the factors I've listed above? To what extent have they studied Amanda's body language in other circumstances to establish a baseline of her normal expressions?

" He said any real guy would be determined to break down that door and save the lady in distress not give up. " It's easy to second guess someone's behavior under highly unusual circumstances, especially when we know the end of the story - there was a dead body behind that door. I think this line of argument has very little value in general. In my experience different people react very differently under the same circumstances. If you're not sure about that spend a little time in Trump's America.

Let's assume for a moment that this analyst is correct - any real guy would be determined to break down that door. We could conclude that either:

1) RS is not a "real guy" whatever that means.
or
2) RS was trying to delay the discovery of the body.

Someone with a good knowledge of the case would know that RS and AK had called the police and other room mates raising the alarm regarding Meredith. That would tend to go against #2 leaving us with #1. At which point I would say, so what? RS is not a real guy. OK. Does that make him a murderer?
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 07:16 AM   #3134
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Bill, when you expect or want to see something, you will see it. Thus it is with how people interpret things. A simple smile becomes a smirk. A comforting hug and kiss become canoodling. Wind blown hair becomes disheveled hair. And so it goes.
Your use of canoodling reminded me of Dr. Lillian Glass who claims to have some expertise regarding body language. Glass 1st came out with an opinion that Amanda was innocent, then reversed herself in this blog:

https://drlillianglassbodylanguagebl...tion/#comments

Glass uses "canoodled" in her 2nd sentence. Now if you read down through the comments you'll see that Glass then denies using "canoodled" even though it's right there in her own blog. Then she denies that she denied using the word. It's all very strange - and quite funny.

By the way, I'm wondering what was the first use of "canoodle" regarding Amanda.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 08:35 AM   #3135
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
By the way, I'm wondering what was the first use of "canoodle" regarding Amanda.
I think it was when Knox had taken her poodle out in a canoe. The body language analysis on that alone marks the lady as evil beyond repair. Should have seen the still photo of her when she'd seen that the dog had messed in the boat!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 08:40 AM   #3136
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
For those expressing scepticism about body language expertise, here is a list of the sources and references that come up in the video:


The Secret Life of Pronouns by James Pennebaker

Blurb:

Quote:
In The Secret Life of Pronouns, social psychologist and language expert James W. Pennebaker uses his groundbreaking research in computational linguistics-in essence, counting the frequency of words we use-to show that our language carries secrets about our feelings, our self-concept, and our social intelligence. Our most forgettable words, such as pronouns and prepositions, can be the most revealing: their patterns are as distinctive as fingerprints.
Greg Hartley and Steve Rouse's website Body Language Tactics.

Truth and Lies by Mark Bowden and Tracey Thomson

Blurb

Quote:
Bestselling authors Mark Bowden and Tracey Thomson, principals at the communications company Truthplane, illustrate the essential points of body language with examples from everyday life, leavened with humour and insights that you can use to your advantage in virtually any situation.

The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker

Blurb

Quote:
A marvellously readable book... illuminates every facet of human language: its biological origin, its uniqueness to humanity, it acquisition by children, its grammatical structure, the production and perception of speech, the pathology of language disorders and the unstoppable evolution of languages and dialects' -

In fact there is a whole world of psychology out there in body language.

Chase Hughes quoted a study by New York University: Greenberg & Stone in which they took seventy subjects of whom half had to describe a real life trauma that actually happened and the other half made up a story.

The differences were striking. The made up stories took the listener through a carefully constructed narrative pre-empting objections by the listener. There is distancing by using additional verbs and describing emotions felt at the time.

Genuine traumas are in the past so no description of emotions or very little is included.

It was possible to tell which were fake and which likely to be genuine. Nine studies have proven this to be the case.


Amanda Knox' story about how she came home blah blah and found the door open blah blah, needless to say falls into the 'fake' category, for reasons stated. This is to do with language profiling by people such as Pinker and Pennebaker, who also established that an increase in 'big words' pointed to an attempt at deception. Ditto changes in pronouns. Thus Knox suddenly uses the second person (presumably to invite empathy from the listener and get the to nod their head) 'You are a little tentative' [when breaking down someone's door]. She also shifts to 'we noticed' [Meredith's door was locked] after lots of herself heroically running around the house searching for things.

Also mentioned is Yuri Hassan who brings up the concept of 'the brain synch. This is when the brain of the speaker and the listener light up on a machine in the same parts, indicating mini synchs during the course of a conversation. indicating an empathy - a link - between listener and narrator.

Mark Bowden said ultimately he just didn't get any synch with the story she was trying to pitch - which was 'Confusion, concern and confirmation' [time and again Knox tells us how CONFUSED she was, just not understanding whilst everybody else was ALARMED].

Hughes saw a mismatch in body language her hand movements were ahead of what she was about to say. Constantly saying, 'that was strange'. As he points out, when a guy was convinced he saw a UFO, and recounted it, he didn't add, oh that was strange.


What struck Bowden was 'so little effort was put into gaining access to Meredith's room and this just didn't convince him as a sympathetic listener.

The experts said Knox did what Obama used to do: The Exposition: preempting unconscious and anticipated objections in your listener. In other words, Knox is setting up the listener to buy into the world she has created.

Question is: if you are being truthful, why would you need to construct such a complex narrative?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 08:54 AM   #3137
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Some - the PGP - have claimed that the Italian courts never have made mistakes, except when they have acquitted Knox and Sollecito. And of course, some of those making those claims of Italian judicial infallibility go on to claim that the acquittals on the merits and the law of Knox were actually based on some kind of fraud or interference.

So its interesting to find an ECHR case, Felloni v. Italy 44221/14, where the ECHR found in its final judgment that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) had committed a clear error in law in convicting someone. The CSC error and failure to explain the reasoning of the error resulted in a violation of the Convention under Article 6.1, unfair trial. Whether the error was inadvertent or intentional is not known. The case is now under supervision before the Committee of Ministers - Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR; the Italian government is obligated to provide an Action Plan for resolving the case.

Here's a summary from the CoM website HUDOC EXEC:

Quote:

The applicant, sentenced on a charge of driving while unfit through drink to a one-month suspended prison term and a fine of 900,00 euros, appealed before the Court of Appeal pleading not guilty and, in the alternative, raised the defence of mitigating circumstances under Art. 62 bis of the Criminal Code, arguing in particular that he had no criminal record. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Felloni’s conviction and sentence, dismissing his plea of mitigating circumstances because the absence of a criminal record no longer permitted a reduction in sentence.

Mr Felloni appealed on points of law, submitting that the criminal law in force at the relevant time did provide for a criterion of automatic acknowledgement of mitigating circumstances when the convicted person had no criminal record; consequently, he complained that his prison sentence was the result of the retrospective application of a harsher criminal law entered into force only after the offence was committed (Art. 62 bis of the Criminal Code, as amended by law no. 125 of 2008), that rendered inoperative the abovementioned legal criterion which have been favourable to him.

The Court of Cassation declared inadmissible Mr Felloni’s appeal, on the bases that all the grounds of appeal raised mere factual questions outside the remit of the Court of Cassation.

The European Court found that the Mr Felloni’s ground of appeal before the Court of Cassation concerning the allegedly retrospective application of Law. No. 125 of 2008 to his case and the consequent refusal to grant him the benefit of mitigation - regardless of its foundation on the merits - did not merely concern the version of the facts established by the lower courts, but it represented one of his principal grounds of appeal in point of law, such that it had required a specific and explicit response.

Consequently, the Court found that the national Court, in failing in its duty to give reasons for its decisions, breached Art. 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing).
Source: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-55405

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd September 2020 at 10:20 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 09:42 AM   #3138
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Question is: if you are being truthful, why would you need to construct such a complex narrative?
That is a very good question Vixen. It's one people have been asking about the pro-guilt narrative for a long time.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 09:58 AM   #3139
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Your use of canoodling reminded me of Dr. Lillian Glass who claims to have some expertise regarding body language. Glass 1st came out with an opinion that Amanda was innocent, then reversed herself in this blog:

https://drlillianglassbodylanguagebl...tion/#comments
What I find interesting is Lillian Glass having been curiously silent re: the March 2015 SC final decision. I could find no tweets at that point in time, despite this being a person who tweets a lot, conceding Knox's, and Sollectito's, definitive acquittal & exoneration. Sort of like other media "people of the night" like Nancy Grace - who Lillian seems to be buds with judging by their "hugs" photos - and Alan Dershowitz. I did find a tweet where she bragged about being quoted in an article about Jen & Ben...on radar online.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 10:27 AM   #3140
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
One of the guys was a trained army interrogator. Interrogation is important. That is why every country in the world has interrogators. Criminals are interrogated. Bankrupts and dodgy directors are interrogated by people who've passed exams in being...examiners, spies are interrogated. Why? because interrogation can get to the truth.

The army interrogator used his skills in having years of experience in court martial (_?). When people commit an offence or want to hide their assets from creditors they do and say all sorts of things to conceal their dishonesty. These guys are trained in how to spot deception. This is how you catch the money launderers, the confidence tricksters, the fraudsters: they all adopt methods of deception and this includes faking body language, careful construction of the stories they tell - a script - attempts to ingratiate themselves with the listener, faking innocence.

The expert in statement analysis barely knew Meredith's or Filomena's names, he was solely relying in his long expertise studying experts to whom he referenced on several occasions. For example, he mentioned how people try to distance themselves from the scene by using terms such as, 'I remembered I...' or they bring in extra verbs. For example, instead of saying, I went into Filomena's room and the window was broken with glass everywhere, Knox does a long spiel about how 'I saw...this... and I saw...that..' adding an internal speil about her internal thoughts as though to authenticate her narrative, 'I thought "that's strange"'. As Chase Hughes explained, when you are in a car crash you don't say, 'the car in front slammed on its brakes and I felt scared and thought oh that's odd', you just relate the facts. On speaking about Filomena's room, Knox deflected away from it completely and started rattling on about how clean and tidy Laura was. 'Laura's room was unruffled. I thought that was strange as Filomena's room had been ruffled but Laura is exceptionally clean and tidy - giggle giggle -' erm, hello? this is a murder investigation and they want to hear about the murder not a digression into your roommates ******* cleanliness habits.

The guy who specialises in facial body language only, Mark Bowden - the terribly camp English guy - had never even heard of her and knew nothing of the case but after video three he was astounded. 'According to this woman, there are two types of people in this world: the CLEAN and the NOT CLEAN'.

It seems the courts, John Kercher and the British birds were on the right track regarding Knox and Kercher falling out over Knox' cleanliness habits or lack thereof. By the final video, Bowden's comment is he was indiffferent towards the first two or three videos but by the fifth, his conclusion was, 'totally 100% a LIAR', just from her facial expressions, microexpressions, rolling eyeballs, grim smiles - 'smiles of fear /terror' he called them, raised eyebrows, direction of gaze.

The army interrogator guy was saying that every time she gulped he would have seen it as a 'red flag' were he interrogating her and would push her at these junctures plus every time she changed the pronoun from 'I' to 'we' - suddenly we have team effort. The other guy thought her claim Raffaele kicked the door twice and then gave up, absolutely pathetic. He said any real guy would be determined to break down that door and save the lady in distress not give up. (And we know that is exactly what Luca Altieri did when he arrived.)


Body language is a fine art. It can really help you understand what makes a person tick. You can tell when they are lying, when they are upset, excited, deceptive, open, hostile, aggressive, scared, nervous, confident, etc., etc and content analysis is also revealing.
Vixen boasts about the strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but if this was the case why do the arguments Vixen has to resort to contradict this. If there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why would you need to rely on body language rather than let the evidence speak for itself. Vixen has refused to address this issue. Take the evidence against Guede which is detailed below. The evidence is so solid you wouldn’t need to rely on body language and language analysis to determine Guede is guilty. Why can’t Vixen do the same with Amanda. The fact that Vixen has to rely on body language indicates the facts don’t support the case for guilt and Vixen doesn’t have any facts or evidence to base her arguments so has to fall back on body language which actually supports the case for innocence.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.net/rudy-guede/

It is important to bear in mind Vixen has a virulent hatred of Amanda and believes Amanda is guilty regardless of the facts and because of this it makes no different how Amanda behaves Vixen is going to attack Amanda for it. The problem with body language and language analysis, people can interpret it any you want. If someone cries, they are crocodile tears and if someone doesn’t cry they have no emotion.

Vixen talks about how body language indicates Amanda is a liar. If there are documented instances of Amanda lying why does Vixen have to rely on body language. If Vixen was to give a talk I wouldn’t have to rely on body language to show Vixen has lied because there are numerous documented instances of lying in her posts. Can Vixen explain why the same doesn’t apply to Amanda?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13170726
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 10:30 AM   #3141
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If this video still of Amanda Knox recounting how she came across the murder scene doesn't chill your blood...


https://youtu.be/YYu6l7TQeLg


I'm assuming that this post is some sort of bad attempt at satire?

Because to call that screengrab "the look of pure evil" and a face which "chill(s) your blood", and to mean it in all seriousness, is..... well.......

..... I can't even come up with the right word
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 10:37 AM   #3142
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For those expressing scepticism about body language expertise, here is a list of the sources and references that come up in the video:


The Secret Life of Pronouns by James Pennebaker

Blurb:

Quote:
In The Secret Life of Pronouns, social psychologist and language expert James W. Pennebaker uses his groundbreaking research in computational linguistics-in essence, counting the frequency of words we use-to show that our language carries secrets about our feelings, our self-concept, and our social intelligence. Our most forgettable words, such as pronouns and prepositions, can be the most revealing: their patterns are as distinctive as fingerprints.
Amanda Knox' story about how she came home blah blah and found the door open blah blah, needless to say falls into the 'fake' category, for reasons stated. This is to do with language profiling by people such as Pinker and Pennebaker, who also established that an increase in 'big words' pointed to an attempt at deception. Ditto changes in pronouns. Thus Knox suddenly uses the second person (presumably to invite empathy from the listener and get the to nod their head) 'You are a little tentative' [when breaking down someone's door]. She also shifts to 'we noticed' [Meredith's door was locked] after lots of herself heroically running around the house searching for things.
What is of note in referring to Pennebaker's work, is that this is NOT Pennebaker's analysis. No one here is skeptical of the body of knowledge called, "body language analysis", what we are skeptical about is YOUR CLAIM that it is definitive, a claim that reputable analysts would make about themselves. They always express provisional opinions, and then only after direct exposure to a subject. (Not by looking at one photo, like Vixen did above.... seeing pure evil in one photo!)

Indeed, both the YouTube video, as well as you, avoid the issue. This stuff is only remotely useful when the hard-forensics don't point to anyone in particular. You have implicitly conceded, then, that the hard-forensics are inconclusive. (You never cite stuff like this to say, "Oh look, those really were Rudy Guede's fingerprints, or it really was Rudy's DNA in the victim's vagina.")

Be that as it may, Pennebaker is the last person to say that his work trumps hard forensics. Everything I've read about him has him using the proper caveats..... eg. above:

Quote:
Our most forgettable words, such as pronouns and prepositions, can be the most revealing: their patterns are as distinctive as fingerprints.
Both you and the YouTube video implicitly replace "can be" with "is". Nice try.

On an aside, Both James Pennebaker and Amanda Knox received notice at the 2014 ICSA Annual International Conference, a conference associated with exposing cults.

Pennebaker's work was referenced at a workshop describing the importance of a victim of cults finding healing, healing through writing and providing an overt self-composed counter-narrative to what the cult has imposed. Great stuff.

Amanda Knox was referenced in their workshop on false confessions - since situations which produce false confessions resemble what cults do to people:
Originally Posted by 2014 ICSA Conference
False Confessions: History and Case Studies
Adams-Weiss, Donna; Bryson, Jeff

A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime in which the confessor is not responsible for the crime. There have been
several documented cases throughout recent history in which false confessions by police and other authorities have been
induced through coercive means. Modern forensic evidence that uses DNA evidence often is used to exonerate the accused
individuals. In this presentation, claims of confessions that have been induced by way of coercion will be explored and a
historical perspective will be given. Three recent case studies will be examined wherein claims of false confessions were made:
the case of Amanda Knox, the Central Park Jogger case, and the case of the West Memphis Three. Causes of false confessions
will be discussed as well as proposed policy reforms to prevent false confessions.
Please note that this conference took place when Knox and Sollecito had stood provisionally re-convicted, and before their exoneration in 2015.

Experts, peers of Pennebaker's I presume, recognized that Italian interrogations resembled cultish indoctrination. Even before the pair had been definitively acquitted.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd September 2020 at 10:52 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 10:43 AM   #3143
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Some - the PGP - have claimed that the Italian courts never have made mistakes, except when they have acquitted Knox and Sollecito. And of course, some of those making those claims of Italian judicial infallibility go on to claim that the acquittals on the merits and the law of Knox were actually based on some kind of fraud or interference.

So its interesting to find an ECHR case, Felloni v. Italy 44221/14, where the ECHR found in its final judgment that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) had committed a clear error in law in convicting someone. The CSC error and failure to explain the reasoning of the error resulted in a violation of the Convention under Article 6.1, unfair trial. Whether the error was inadvertent or intentional is not known. The case is now under supervision before the Committee of Ministers - Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR; the Italian government is obligated to provide an Action Plan for resolving the case.

Here's a summary from the CoM website HUDOC EXEC:



Source: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-55405
Here are excerpts from the press release for the case Felloni v. Italy:

Quote:
Conviction for drink-driving offence:
compliance with principle of non-retrospective effect of harsher criminal legislation but lack of reasoning in cassation judgment

The Court found that the Court of Cassation had failed to respond to Mr Felloni’s ground of appeal no. 6 concerning the allegedly retrospective application of Law no. 125 of 2008 to his case and the refusal of the courts below to grant him the benefit of mitigation. The highest court had merely declared inadmissible all the grounds of appeal raised by Mr Felloni on the basis that they sought to call into question the version of the facts established by the lower courts.

The Court was not convinced that the question raised by Mr Felloni in his ground of appeal no. 6 had concerned a factual question outside the remit of the Court of Cassation. It further found that the question of the allegedly retrospective application of the legislation on mitigation had been one of Mr Felloni’s principal grounds of appeal, such that it had required a specific and explicit response.

Mr Felloni had therefore not been guaranteed an effective examination of his arguments or a response allowing him to understand the reasons for their dismissal. Consequently, the Court of Cassation had failed in its duty to give reasons for its decisions. There had thus been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
This case illustrates some of the problems with the Italian courts, as shown more severely in the Knox - Sollecito case especially by the judgments and errors of the Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini courts. However, we also see errors in application of Italian law - as it should be interpreted in the light of ECHR case-law and the Convention - from the very beginning of the case and in each of the courts (possibly excepting the Boninsegna court), in particular regarding their failure to address the violations of law in Knox's interrogation and failing to exclude that evidence entirely in accordance with CPP Articles 63 and 191.

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd September 2020 at 10:49 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 11:58 AM   #3144
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What is of note in referring to Pennebaker's work, is that this is NOT Pennebaker's analysis. No one here is skeptical of the body of knowledge called, "body language analysis", what we are skeptical about is YOUR CLAIM that it is definitive, a claim that reputable analysts would make about themselves. They always express provisional opinions, and then only after direct exposure to a subject. (Not by looking at one photo, like Vixen did above.... seeing pure evil in one photo!)

Indeed, both the YouTube video, as well as you, avoid the issue. This stuff is only remotely useful when the hard-forensics don't point to anyone in particular. You have implicitly conceded, then, that the hard-forensics are inconclusive. (You never cite stuff like this to say, "Oh look, those really were Rudy Guede's fingerprints, or it really was Rudy's DNA in the victim's vagina.")

Be that as it may, Pennebaker is the last person to say that his work trumps hard forensics. Everything I've read about him has him using the proper caveats..... eg. above:


Both you and the YouTube video implicitly replace "can be" with "is". Nice try.

On an aside, Both James Pennebaker and Amanda Knox received notice at the 2014 ICSA Annual International Conference, a conference associated with exposing cults.

Pennebaker's work was referenced at a workshop describing the importance of a victim of cults finding healing, healing through writing and providing an overt self-composed counter-narrative to what the cult has imposed. Great stuff.

Amanda Knox was referenced in their workshop on false confessions - since situations which produce false confessions resemble what cults do to people:
Please note that this conference took place when Knox and Sollecito had stood provisionally re-convicted, and before their exoneration in 2015.

Experts, peers of Pennebaker's I presume, recognized that Italian interrogations resembled cultish indoctrination. Even before the pair had been definitively acquitted.
On the lack of scientific credibility of the use of body language for lie detection etc., see this abstract:

Quote:
The relationship between nonverbal communication and deception continues to attract much interest, but there are many misconceptions about it. In this review, we present a scientific view on this relationship. We describe theories explaining why liars would behave differently from truth tellers, followed by research on how liars actually behave and individuals’ ability to detect lies. We show that the nonverbal cues to deceit discovered to date are faint and unreliable and that people are mediocre lie catchers when they pay attention to behavior. We also discuss why individuals hold misbeliefs about the relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception—beliefs that appear very hard to debunk. We further discuss the ways in which researchers could improve the state of affairs by examining nonverbal behaviors in different ways and in different settings than they currently do.

Source:

Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception
Aldert Vrij, Maria Hartwig, and Pär Anders Granhag

Annual Review of Psychology

Vol. 70:295-317 (Volume publication date January 2019)
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135

An excerpt from another article (not behind a pay wall):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-lie-detection

Quote:
As the best researchers can tell, and in my own experience as an FBI Special Agent (now retired), detecting deception is very difficult. Every study conducted since 1986, when the famed researcher Paul Ekman first wrote about this, has demonstrated that we humans are no better than chance at detecting deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan 1991, 913-920; Granhag & Strömwall, 2004, 169; Mann & Vrij 2004). That means that if you toss a coin in the air you will be as likely to detect deception as the truth. And while it is true that a very few people are better at detecting deception than others, they are barely above chance. In fact, those that are really good are only correct somewhere around 60% of the time; that means that 40% of the time they are wrong and you would not like them sitting on a jury judging you.

Unfortunately many people have come along and declared themselves deception experts over the years and that has influenced professionals and society in significant ways. I have listened to jurors post trial comment that they thought a witness was lying because they had "heard somewhere that if you touch your nose you are lying." Likewise I have talked to many a law enforcement officer who is convinced that they are experts at detecting deception. They have deluded themselves that they are, as have judges and other professionals. In fact, every time I hear Judge Judy (of TV fame) say, "I know you are lying," I cringe (unlike us she is covered by judicial privilege in saying what she wishes, the rest of us would be sued for slander). What she and others don't realize is that as Ekman, De Paulo, Frank, Mann, O'Sullivan, Vrij and others have stated, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Ekman 1985 et.al., infra.)

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd September 2020 at 12:05 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 12:06 PM   #3145
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I'm assuming that this post is some sort of bad attempt at satire?

Because to call that screengrab "the look of pure evil" and a face which "chill(s) your blood", and to mean it in all seriousness, is..... well.......

..... I can't even come up with the right word
I can, but it would get me a yellow card.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 12:38 PM   #3146
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Vixen's pro-guilt bias is clearly evident when she wrote "Criminals are interrogated. Bankrupts and dodgy directors are interrogated by people who've passed exams in being...examiners, spies are interrogated. Why? because interrogation can get to the truth."

Notice that she assumes anyone being interrogated is a criminal. What Vixen fails to understand is that an interrogator's objective is not necessarily to find the truth; it's to obtain a confession. This is what the Perugia police's objective clearly was the night of Nov. 1/2, 2007. They had already made up their minds who the guilty parties were. They made no secret of this.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 12:49 PM   #3147
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Vixen boasts about the strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but if this was the case why do the arguments Vixen has to resort to contradict this. If there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why would you need to rely on body language rather than let the evidence speak for itself. Vixen has refused to address this issue. Take the evidence against Guede which is detailed below. The evidence is so solid you wouldn’t need to rely on body language and language analysis to determine Guede is guilty. Why can’t Vixen do the same with Amanda. The fact that Vixen has to rely on body language indicates the facts don’t support the case for guilt and Vixen doesn’t have any facts or evidence to base her arguments so has to fall back on body language which actually supports the case for innocence.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.net/rudy-guede/

It is important to bear in mind Vixen has a virulent hatred of Amanda and believes Amanda is guilty regardless of the facts and because of this it makes no different how Amanda behaves Vixen is going to attack Amanda for it. The problem with body language and language analysis, people can interpret it any you want. If someone cries, they are crocodile tears and if someone doesn’t cry they have no emotion.

Vixen talks about how body language indicates Amanda is a liar. If there are documented instances of Amanda lying why does Vixen have to rely on body language. If Vixen was to give a talk I wouldn’t have to rely on body language to show Vixen has lied because there are numerous documented instances of lying in her posts. Can Vixen explain why the same doesn’t apply to Amanda?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13170726
Strangely enough, I do not have a 'virulent hatred of Amanda Knox'. I am 100% objective and would like to see Meredith Kercher's family find justice for her vicious and brutal slaying, which Knox seems to find so amusing.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 01:03 PM   #3148
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
On the lack of scientific credibility of the use of body language for lie detection etc., see this abstract:




Source:

Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception
Aldert Vrij, Maria Hartwig, and Pär Anders Granhag

Annual Review of Psychology

Vol. 70:295-317 (Volume publication date January 2019)
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135



An excerpt from another article (not behind a pay wall):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-lie-detection
Your quote:

Quote:
Unfortunately many people have come along and declared themselves deception experts over the years and that has influenced professionals and society in significant ways. I have listened to jurors post trial comment that they thought a witness was lying because they had "heard somewhere that if you touch your nose you are lying."
..is very silly isn't it? As if a layperson sitting on a jury making pop psychology decisions therefore debunks the whole of the science of psychology. Most psychologists loathe the pop psychology junk that lines the populist bookshelves.

Fact is, many of the leading thinkers in psychology have studied the topic for many years and hold doctorates in their specialised fields. These are professional scientists who measure their results and carry out ANOVA.

Whilst anyone can call themselves a 'body language expert' only members of the British Psychological Society or the American equivalent (or other countries' versions of same) can present themselves as professional practitioners of psychology, or at least you should look for the letters BPA or APA after their name. I was once was a member but never kept it up.

Body language is not about whether you touch your nose or your ear. THis is about people who need to be able to spot the signs of fraud and dishonesty in their working lives, for example, the police or border guards, etc.

A serious crime is committed. Nine out of ten perpetrators will deny they had anything to do with it, so the art of a police interrogator is to use whatever skill it takes to fathom out the truth of the matter. As the Behaviour Panel say in their video they are not there to decide guilt or innocence (as that is always for the court to decide) they are just there to watch clips of Prince Andrew - three months ago - and other interesting subjects to see what psychological patterns they can discern in that person's version of the events.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 01:08 PM   #3149
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strangely enough, I do not have a 'virulent hatred of Amanda Knox'. I am 100% objective and would like to see Meredith Kercher's family find justice for her vicious and brutal slaying, which Knox seems to find so amusing.
100% objective? Should we apply body language or statement analysis to that claim? What would be the main criterion of an indication of deception in the "100% objective" claim?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Lessee..........
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 01:15 PM   #3150
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen's pro-guilt bias is clearly evident when she wrote "Criminals are interrogated. Bankrupts and dodgy directors are interrogated by people who've passed exams in being...examiners, spies are interrogated. Why? because interrogation can get to the truth."

Notice that she assumes anyone being interrogated is a criminal. What Vixen fails to understand is that an interrogator's objective is not necessarily to find the truth; it's to obtain a confession. This is what the Perugia police's objective clearly was the night of Nov. 1/2, 2007. They had already made up their minds who the guilty parties were. They made no secret of this.
There is zero point in getting any old random person in the street to 'confess'. What happens is this. A crime is reported or discovered. Police quickly establish witnesses or make appeals for same. During the course of their investigation, various individuals connected to the victim begin to become apparent: perhaps family members, neighbours, workmates, shopkeepers, whoever.

Now, each of these persons of interest are invited to come along to the police station to make a statement or the police visit them. They are asked for an account of what they were doing, which they do not have to answer without a solicitor. Their stories are then checked out. So, if the victim's neighbour claims he was int he pub as of the time of the crime, the police will then check out his story. They do this systematically with every story. Police are trained to be suspicious. They do not just take your word for it. So, a witness' story turns out to have holes in it, so that person is called back. If that person continues to be evasive about their whereabouts or give a false alibi, then of course the police are going to be watching them very closely to understand (a) why they have lied (b) where they actually were, and this requires an understanding of what people do when they want to practice deception: the words they use, the body language they adopt, their attempts to manipulate you, for example by chumminess, threats, bribes, appeals to sympathy.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 01:17 PM   #3151
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strangely enough, I do not have a 'virulent hatred of Amanda Knox'. I am 100% objective and would like to see Meredith Kercher's family find justice for her vicious and brutal slaying, which Knox seems to find so amusing.


Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 01:40 PM   #3152
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is zero point in getting any old random person in the street to 'confess'. What happens is this. A crime is reported or discovered. Police quickly establish witnesses or make appeals for same. During the course of their investigation, various individuals connected to the victim begin to become apparent: perhaps family members, neighbours, workmates, shopkeepers, whoever.

Now, each of these persons of interest are invited to come along to the police station to make a statement or the police visit them. They are asked for an account of what they were doing, which they do not have to answer without a solicitor. Their stories are then checked out. So, if the victim's neighbour claims he was int he pub as of the time of the crime, the police will then check out his story. They do this systematically with every story. Police are trained to be suspicious. They do not just take your word for it. So, a witness' story turns out to have holes in it, so that person is called back. If that person continues to be evasive about their whereabouts or give a false alibi, then of course the police are going to be watching them very closely to understand (a) why they have lied (b) where they actually were, and this requires an understanding of what people do when they want to practice deception: the words they use, the body language they adopt, their attempts to manipulate you, for example by chumminess, threats, bribes, appeals to sympathy.
Moonlighting as Captain Obvious there, Vixen?

Yes, and once they do all this and they come to the assumption the person is likely the guilty party, the objective is to get a confession. Studies show that the police are no better at detecting lies than anyone else but they think they are.

Quote:
Early research suggests we tell on average two lies each day [1]. More recent studies, however, have shown that there are large individual differences in the prevalence of lie telling, with the majority of lies being told by a minority of people [2–4]. All these studies suggest that everyone has experience with either being lied to, or with telling lies themselves. Yet, despite this personal experience with deception, research has shown that people, including trained police officers, only perform around chance level in detecting deception [5–8].

One possible explanation for the failure to detect deceit is that people often hold incorrect beliefs about which cues are diagnostic of deception. One notable example here is the belief that liars display more gaze aversion. The Global Deception Research Team [9] investigated the most widespread beliefs about cues indicative of deception, sampling 2320 participants from 58 countries. Over eleven thousand responses were obtained, resulting in 103 distinct beliefs. Gaze aversion was the belief mentioned by most (64%) participants. Comparable results have been obtained by Strömwall and Granhag [10], who reported that gaze aversion and an increase in body movement were believed to be strong cues of deception among police officers, judges, and prosecutors. Research shows, however, that gaze aversion is not a sign of deceit [11, 12].

Incorrect beliefs about cues to deception are not confined to gaze aversion. People tend to rely heavily on nonverbal cues when making deception verdicts (for more information see [13]), regardless of a large body of research showing that deception cannot be reliably inferred from behavior [11, 12]. Studies from the UK, The Netherlands and Sweden have compared professionals and lay persons’ beliefs about cues to deception, including various professions such as police officers, judges, customs officers, prison guards, and immigration officers as professional lie catchers. These studies revealed that professionals typically hold as many (nonverbal) incorrect beliefs about deception as lay people [10, 13–17]. Moreover, when tested against the deception literature, both professionals and lay people overestimated the number of cues that are actually associated with deception [18, 19]. More recently, Masip and Herrero [20] asked police officers and community members how lies can be detected. Again both groups primarily mentioned beliefs about nonverbal cues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892574/

It's a pseudoscience that you fall back on because the real science of forensics does not support guilt.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 05:31 PM   #3153
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
One might think that the 4 "body language experts" in the YouTube video discussion on Amanda Knox's body language were, perhaps, psychology PhDs or otherwise doctoral-degreed members of a recognized organization of psychological experts, such as the American Psychological Association* (APA) or the British Psychological Society** (BPS).

* Members of the APA must hold a doctoral-level degree from an accredited institution (Students can be affiliate members):

Quote:
APA members are doctoral-level psychologists who work in myriad settings, including academic research, private psychology practice, K-12 schools, hospitals, the armed forces, court systems, prisons, business and industry and the VA. A doctoral-level psychologist holds a PhD, PsyD or EdD in psychology from a regionally accredited institution. Individuals who hold a doctorate in a related field from a regionally accredited institution may also join APA as members.
** Chartered members (full members), recognized by law, must hold a doctoral level degree and have had graduate training in psychology.

However, the 4 "experts" are entrepreneurs who apparently have no academic degrees in psychology, according to their web sites. They run companies that provide training on interrogation and body language, and so on, and one can take a course for perhaps as low as $59 dollars (regularly $289) from one of them***.

Here's their backgrounds, from their websites or Wikipedia:

Mark Bowden: BA in Performing Arts, Middlesex U., 1991. Has been an actor; apparently well-known for appearing as a streaker in a Nike commercial (Wikipedia****)

Greg Hartley: No degree listed. Trained as an interrogator with the US Army.

Chase Hughes: No degree listed. Claims 20 years of experience creating advanced behavior skills courses. Business partner with Scott Rouse.

Scott Rouse: No degree listed. Holds multiple certificates in interrogation techniques. Trained alongside the FBI, Secret Service, US Military Intelligence, and Department of Defense.

*** http://www.scottrouse.com/home/

**** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_B...English_author)

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd September 2020 at 05:54 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 05:41 PM   #3154
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strangely enough
What's strange about it?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I do not have a 'virulent hatred of Amanda Knox'.
And in other credible news, Dr. Fauci is "Q".

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I [nonsense snipped]would like to see Meredith Kercher's family find justice
It doesn't matter what you would like. They've already gotten all the justice to which they're entitled.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 06:11 PM   #3155
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your quote:

Fact is, many of the leading thinkers in psychology have studied the topic for many years and hold doctorates in their specialised fields. These are professional scientists who measure their results and carry out ANOVA.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
One might think that the 4 "body language experts" in the YouTube video discussion on Amanda Knox's body language were, perhaps, psychology PhDs or otherwise doctoral-degreed members of a recognized organization of psychological experts, such as the American Psychological Association* (APA) or the British Psychological Society** (BPS).

* Members of the APA must hold a doctoral-level degree from an accredited institution (Students can be affiliate members):



** Chartered members (full members), recognized by law, must hold a doctoral level degree and have had graduate training in psychology.

However, the 4 "experts" are entrepreneurs who apparently have no academic degrees in psychology, according to their web sites. They run companies that provide training on interrogation and body language, and so on, and one can take a course for perhaps as low as $59 dollars (regularly $289) from one of them***.

Here's their backgrounds, from their websites or Wikipedia:

Mark Bowden: BA in Performing Arts, Middlesex U., 1991. Has been an actor; apparently well-known for appearing as a streaker in a Nike commercial (Wikipedia****)

Greg Hartley: No degree listed. Trained as an interrogator with the US Army.

Chase Hughes: No degree listed. Claims 20 years of experience creating advanced behavior skills courses. Business partner with Scott Rouse.

Scott Rouse: No degree listed. Holds multiple certificates in interrogation techniques. Trained alongside the FBI, Secret Service, US Military Intelligence, and Department of Defense.

*** http://www.scottrouse.com/home/

**** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_B...English_author)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of the 4 have ever performed an analysis of variance.......
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 06:47 PM   #3156
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Ah, yes....interrogators in the US Army who use torture techniques like water boarding. Always guaranteed to get the truth. Maybe not quite as quickly as the rack or pulling out fingernails but still pretty darn good results in getting a 'confession'.

"Scott Rouse: No degree listed. Holds multiple certificates in interrogation techniques."

Interrogation Techniques? Would that include the Reid Technique? Proven to produce false confessions?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 07:06 PM   #3157
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Interrogation Techniques? Would that include the Reid Technique? Proven to produce false confessions?
I've been reading course materials which advertise teaching "statement analysis" as well as other interrogation techniques (polygraph, body language interpretation).

They don't identify it as "The Reid Technique", but one skill in interrogation is how to steer the suspect away from denying involvement in the crime. A parallel skill is to get the suspect to talk about the crime and how it may have been done. The course material I read does not outright say it, but it is clear that the goal of the interrogation process is to achieve a confession.

As for "statement analysis" as well as more well known methods like electronic polygraph, the materials highlight the inherent unreliability of those methods, unless in the hands of an experienced technician.

And then, one actually defines what "experienced" means. At the top of the list of skills an experienced technician brings, is their ability to elicit information directly from the suspect, meaning, information that doesn't come from the technique, but comes from directed conversation with the technique put aside for a second - meaning, not information that comes from the method itself.

For instance - a polygraph operator will ask yes/no questions. But at some point, the technician will turn the machine off and say something like, "the polygraph is giving me conflicting results about specifics of the crime. Can you help clear that up?" They then help you remember things, and direct you away from denial.

Of course, the polygraph is giving no such indication. It's part of the technician's training as an interrogator to do a bait and switch like that.

One brochure had a module on why these techniques were not admissible in court, but were (it claimed) invaluable aids in helping investigators focus on to a suspect when the other evidence is unclear.

Meaning - even they seem to agree with John Douglas that if the hard-forensics are clear and point definitively to guilt of a suspect........ why would you administer a polygraph or do statement analysis?

To bring up statement analysis or polygraphs or body language interpretation means, by default, that there is no reliable hard forensics. Thank you to Vixen for admitting that.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd September 2020 at 07:07 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 07:37 PM   #3158
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I've been reading course materials which advertise teaching "statement analysis" as well as other interrogation techniques (polygraph, body language interpretation).

They don't identify it as "The Reid Technique", but one skill in interrogation is how to steer the suspect away from denying involvement in the crime. A parallel skill is to get the suspect to talk about the crime and how it may have been done. The course material I read does not outright say it, but it is clear that the goal of the interrogation process is to achieve a confession.

As for "statement analysis" as well as more well known methods like electronic polygraph, the materials highlight the inherent unreliability of those methods, unless in the hands of an experienced technician.

And then, one actually defines what "experienced" means. At the top of the list of skills an experienced technician brings, is their ability to elicit information directly from the suspect, meaning, information that doesn't come from the technique, but comes from directed conversation with the technique put aside for a second - meaning, not information that comes from the method itself.

For instance - a polygraph operator will ask yes/no questions. But at some point, the technician will turn the machine off and say something like, "the polygraph is giving me conflicting results about specifics of the crime. Can you help clear that up?" They then help you remember things, and direct you away from denial.

Of course, the polygraph is giving no such indication. It's part of the technician's training as an interrogator to do a bait and switch like that.

One brochure had a module on why these techniques were not admissible in court, but were (it claimed) invaluable aids in helping investigators focus on to a suspect when the other evidence is unclear.

Meaning - even they seem to agree with John Douglas that if the hard-forensics are clear and point definitively to guilt of a suspect........ why would you administer a polygraph or do statement analysis?

To bring up statement analysis or polygraphs or body language interpretation means, by default, that there is no reliable hard forensics. Thank you to Vixen for admitting that.
"A parallel skill is to get the suspect to talk about the crime and how it may have been done" " it is clear that the goal of the interrogation process is [hilite]to achieve a confession". "They then help you remember things, and direct you away from denial."

Which is exactly what they did with Amanda.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 07:49 PM   #3159
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I've been reading course materials which advertise teaching "statement analysis" as well as other interrogation techniques (polygraph, body language interpretation).

They don't identify it as "The Reid Technique", but one skill in interrogation is how to steer the suspect away from denying involvement in the crime. A parallel skill is to get the suspect to talk about the crime and how it may have been done. The course material I read does not outright say it, but it is clear that the goal of the interrogation process is to achieve a confession.

As for "statement analysis" as well as more well known methods like electronic polygraph, the materials highlight the inherent unreliability of those methods, unless in the hands of an experienced technician.

And then, one actually defines what "experienced" means. At the top of the list of skills an experienced technician brings, is their ability to elicit information directly from the suspect, meaning, information that doesn't come from the technique, but comes from directed conversation with the technique put aside for a second - meaning, not information that comes from the method itself.

For instance - a polygraph operator will ask yes/no questions. But at some point, the technician will turn the machine off and say something like, "the polygraph is giving me conflicting results about specifics of the crime. Can you help clear that up?" They then help you remember things, and direct you away from denial.

Of course, the polygraph is giving no such indication. It's part of the technician's training as an interrogator to do a bait and switch like that.

One brochure had a module on why these techniques were not admissible in court, but were (it claimed) invaluable aids in helping investigators focus on to a suspect when the other evidence is unclear.

Meaning - even they seem to agree with John Douglas that if the hard-forensics are clear and point definitively to guilt of a suspect........ why would you administer a polygraph or do statement analysis?

To bring up statement analysis or polygraphs or body language interpretation means, by default, that there is no reliable hard forensics. Thank you to Vixen for admitting that.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"A parallel skill is to get the suspect to talk about the crime and how it may have been done" " it is clear that the goal of the interrogation process is [hilite]to achieve a confession". "They then help you remember things, and direct you away from denial."

Which is exactly what they did with Amanda.
I'm not disagreeing with your statements, but I believe I should point out that this may be the perfect time to get the regularly priced $289 course for $59. It would be tragic to let an opportunity like that get away!
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 07:52 PM   #3160
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Order before midnight!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.