Hmmm... something seems a bit, well, strange... O'Sullivan teaches Psychology, but many of the references in that list are for Cancer research. I know its certainly not impossible that someone is an expert in more than one field, but is it possible that there is more than one "Maureen O'Sullivan" and that this list has mixed the 2 of them up?
Yes, that's certainly possible. I'm not familiar with O'Sullivan, so I don't know what papers she has or hasn't written. However, attempting to look up one of the medical papers on the list (in hope of finding a copy of the article itself, as that would likely identify the Maureen O'Sullivan who co-wrote it) lead me to
a separate academic source which lists O'Sullivan's papers -- and this list also includes the paper on lie detection. So if it's an error, it appears to be a widespread one.
If someone can go by a med library and look up one of her articles (or if someone can find a copy of one available online) that would be a good way to settle it. The actual article should include some note identifying the author -- what school she is associated with, for instance. But until then I'm inclined to give O'Sullivan the benefit of the doubt. Legitimate sources indicate she's a reputable academic. A cursory search by me did not turn up any instances of her endorsing questionable pseudo-scientific beliefs.
That doesn't mean there isn't something out there to be dug up. And even if she is a legit academic, that doesn't mean she's correct in her findings.
But the question was asked,
Who says Eyes for Lies has an ability to detect lies? I was providing an answer. There is at least one person, who appears to be a legitimate academic, who tested her (along with a lot of other people) and says she is gifted in that area.
She may be right more often than wrong (and, from references provided earlier in the thread, there are studies to show clues can be used to determine truth), but I have doubts that her accuracy is enough to consider her a "human lie detector".
I agree. That's a colorful, attention-grabbing description, and people today are fond of such things. (Even, regrettably, many folks who post on this site.) It's something which I think we as skeptics should be striving to avoid in our own writing, and trying to encourage others to show similar restraint in theirs.
What
Eyes for Lies actually claims to be able to do, if one reads what she has written on her site, is a bit more modest.
In offering up the link to her analysis of what was said on a CBS program, I did not mean to imply this was the last word on the subject -- simply that it is an interesting analysis of the case which might be worth reading for folks who are still puzzling over the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Of course, the thing is, it is herself keeping track of her own 'successes'. Much like a psychic, she may attempt to minimize her failures. Plus, in some cases, she may have had other information guiding her. (For example, I doubt in the case of the Ramseys that she did her analysis knowing nothing about the case.)
Again, you have a good point. I am not particularly interested in murder cases myself, so I am not familiar enough with the cases she has weighed in on to be able to do a fair evaluation of her success rate myself.
But in reading what she has written, I am inclined to judge her favorably. She makes rather straightforward statements and predictions in her analyses, and the actual analyses are still up there for people to read and evaluate for themselves. As far as I can see, she has done a reasonably fair job in reporting her successes and failure.
This is not like "psychics" who babble on at great length and then, after the case has been solved, abstract the few items in their babblings which, quoted selectively enough, may sound like hits. A distinguishing characteristic is that "psychics" almost never provide the complete transcript of what they said, and only select out the bits they claim were their predictions after the fact. With
Eyes for Lies, the complete transcripts of her analyses are right there -- and she is posting them, publicly, while the cases are in progress.
Guess I need to clarify... I'm not comparing just the ability to detect lies. What I'm doing is comparing her "lie detection" ability against the abilities of FBI and competent police agencies to properly examine all evidence.
Guess I need to clarify, too. I'm not saying
Eyes for Lies is the last word on the Ramsey case, or that her opinion trumps any contrary opinion by FBI or police agencies. I am saying that, for those intrigued by the case, she is an interesting source and that her observations are worth considering.
I am motivated a lot in life by curiosity. In trying to figure out the answers to things, I look at a lot of different -- often conflicting -- sources. Some sources are worth giving weight to; others carry little to no weight.
Eyes for Lies seems to do a reasonably good job of analyzing people's statements and pinpointing places which appear deceptive. As such, she seems a source worth giving some weight to, and putting on the scales with various other sources to try to figure out where the balance lies.
