In the Knox/Sollecito case, the defendants hugging was interpreted as evidence that they were guilty of murder. Vampire comic book collections were evidence of guilt. As were cartwheels in the police station.
The case I mentioned, drawings made by the defendant were presented as evidence that he was a murderer. The jury found him guilty based solely on that evidence.
Cartwheels are no more a proof of guilt than drawings.
Was the behavior of Knox and Sollecito at the lingerie store presented to the
jury as
evidence of their guilt? Were Knox's floor exercises? Master's drawings were.
Did the Sollecito/Knox jury convict
solely on the basis of this behavior, as you say that Masters was? Can you provide cites to support that? Can you provide anything to support the claim you appear to be making that they did not consider
any other evidence?
Can you even substantiate a claim that the jury considered this behavior as a significant part of their decision? Or at all? From what I have seen of the totality of the evidence reasonable, intelligent people could have arrived at a guilty verdict without any knowledge of this at all.
All I can know for certain is that the police noted such incongruous behavior as part of their investigation. They would have been remiss not to. Even American cops would have been remiss not to. Demeanor may not always be
evidence of guilt, but this does not mean that it should always be completely disregarded in the course of an investigation. Is that what you are suggesting is an example of prosecutorial malfeasance?
Are you going to share your definition of "courtroom psychology" with us? You seemed to use it as a pejorative, and insinuated that the Sollecito/Knox trial was guilty of such a transgression., so it must have some particular meaning for you.