Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoa, hold the phone!

You're dismissing the DNA as "unproven science in this case" but asserting "detecting deceit by observing micro-emotions" in a video as "a valid technique"? And you're willing to come to conclusions on that basis?

The mind reels.

I'm glad you decided to stay in the conversation. I was going to PM you to invite you.

But you need to catch up. I've posted links to the evidence based observational lie detecting. Your assumptions no such technique exists are premature. We all agree every other claimed means of detecting deceit has been debunked from lie detector tests to supposed reading of body language.

How this differs is, first of all, is it is based on a sound hypothesis. Facial expressions are universal and while there are cultural modifications in how we express emotion, everyone the world around recognizes the same facial expressions regardless of culture. What Frank and Ekman hypothesized was these facial expressions are involuntary until we override them if we are trying to deceive. And while they caution in interpreting the reason one's micro-emotional facial expression doesn't match the words a person is speaking, they found it did reliably detect deceit about 80% of the time.

NPR: Lies as Plain as the Nose on Your Face?

Frank is codifying human intuition while he's also debunking myths about how to read people.

"The literature shows that liars don't make less eye contact than truth tellers. But you ask anyone on the planet what liars do, the first thing they agree on is liars don't look you in the eye," Frank said. "Even just getting over that mythology is a step in the right direction."

Fully Automatic Face Detection and Expression Recognition-The Facial Action Coding System

In order to objectively capture the richness and complexity of facial expressions, behavioral scientists have found it necessary to develop objective coding standards. The Facial Action Coding System (FACS) developed Ekman and Friesen (1978) is arguably the most comprehensive and influential of such standards. FACS is based on the anatomy of the human face, and codes expressions in terms of component movements, called “action units” (AUs). Ekman and Friesen defined 46 AUs to describe each independent movement of the face. FACS measures all visible facial muscle movements, including head and eye movements, and not just those presumed to be related to emotion or any other human state.

Ekman's web page which is useful for the research citations, despite the fact the marketing raises red flags. Here's a sample:

Ekman, P.
Lie Catching and Micro Expressions
The Philosophy of Deception, Ed. Clancy Martin, Oxford University Press, 2009

Frank, M.G., Matsumoto, D., Ekman, P. Sinuk, K., Kurylo, A. (2008)
Improving the Ability to recognize Micro Expressions of Emotion

Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M. (2006)
From Flawed Self-Assessment to Blatant Whoppers: The Utility of Voluntary and Involuntary Behavior in Detecting Deception.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 673-686.

Tsiamyrtzis, P., Dowdall, J., Shastri, D., Pavlidis, I.T., Frank, M.G., Ekman, P. (2005)
Imaging Facial Physiology for the Detection of Deceit
International Journal of Computer Vision, 71 (2), 197-214.

A Description of the Micro-_Expression Training Tool (METT)

The Micro-_Expression Training Tool (METT) provides self-instructional training to improve your ability to recognize facial expressions of emotion. In under an hour, METT will train you to see very brief (1/25th of a second) micro-expressions of concealed emotion. This document describes what micro-expressions are, a description of the METT, and the currently available evidence documenting its psychometric reliability and validity.

The Wizards Project

"We've now tested more than 13,000 people for the ability to detect deception, using three different types of tests," said Dr. O'Sullivan, professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco. "Of those 13,000 people we found 31, who we call wizards, who are usually able to tell whether the person is lying, whether the lie is about an opinion, how someone is feeling or about a theft." Dr. O'Sullivan spoke today at an American Medical Association's 23rd Annual Science Reporters Conference in Washington D.C.

"We hope that by studying our wizards, we'll learn more about the kinds of behaviors and ways of thinking and talking that can betray a liar to an experienced interviewer," Dr. O'Sullivan said. "Our wizards are extraordinarily attuned to detecting the nuances of facial expressions, body language and ways of talking and thinking. Some of them can observe a videotape for a few seconds and amazingly they can describe eight details about the person on the tape."

Even though people may try to control their expressions, most of us are not able to keep our feelings from showing on our faces, according to Dr. O'Sullivan. "Some of the muscles involved in expressions are not under conscious control," she said. "Especially when we feel strong emotions, those expressions appear on our faces, even if only for a fraction of a second. Our wizards are attuned to picking up on these 'micro-expressions.'"

"In our early work, we found groups of people who are consistently better at spotting deception, although most groups, including police officers, CIA and FBI agents, lawyers, college students and therapists, do little better than chance," Dr. O'Sullivan said. "By carefully analyzing the videotapes used in our test, we were able to find many objective behavioral measures that could have been used as clues to deception, but most people did not pick up the signals."

By working with secret service agents, trainers from ATF and LA Sheriffs , Dr. O'Sullivan and her colleagues were able to learn a great deal about how people can effectively use the behavioral clues that signal deception and develop training to help people become better lie detectors. "With 20 minutes of training, we are able to significantly improve someone's ability to recognize microexpressions which are involved in many kinds of lies," Dr. O'Sullivan said.

There are both emotional and cognitive clues to deceit, according Dr. O'Sullivan. The emotional clues arise because someone is unable to completely mask what he or she is really feeling. "There are usually emotions that are stirred up by lying," she said. "For most of us the emotion may be distress, but some people take real delight in duping people. The clue to the deception is the mismatch between what is being said and what the person seems to be feeling."

"In cognitive clues, we're looking for inconsistencies in the way people are talking," Dr. O'Sullivan said. "When someone is lying they may have to think more about keeping details straight and slow their speech or become more hesitant; work particularly hard to make the lie flow smoothly and speak more rapidly; use an odd phrase; or become tongue-tied. The inconsistency or the change in delivery is the clue that something is more going on. Of course, none of these things guarantee that someone is lying, but these clues can alert us to the possibility of deception."

"As we have studied our wizards, what we have found that they are highly motivated. They are really interested in being able to understand other people. One part of this understanding is whether someone is telling them the truth," Dr. O'Sullivan said. "Although they seem to have a natural talent, they practice and are always paying careful attention. They tend to be older, too, with a lot of relevant life experience."

"We hope the study of our wizards will enrich our understanding of how people communicate and provide information that we can use to detect deception more accurately," Dr. O'Sullivan concluded.

Eyes for Lies Blog

John Ramsey Interview

(This person claims to be one of the successful people Dr O'Sullivan found in testing those 13,000 people. We don't have confirmation of the claim, but her description of the interview is consistent with Frank and Ekman's work.)



The other fact here I need to point out is, I have not claimed the Ramsey interviews were the only evidence I've drawn my conclusions about this case on. But of course, that hasn't stopped the false assumption this is all about Ginger thinking people look guilty. It's nonsense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My problem is that you have assessed behaviour not live but on a video. That's why I asked earlier if you interviewed the Ramseys and that's why I discount your assessment of the interviews.

That might be your problem, but it is baseless. Taped interview videos are used all the time including in research and in education. In fact, using videos in research allows us to compare different observer's results.

One doesn't need to see an interview live, especially when there are hours and hours of interview videos available.

 

[Piggy]

That might be your problem, but it is baseless. Taped interview videos are used all the time including in research and in education. In fact, using videos in research allows us to compare different observer's results.

One doesn't need to see an interview live, especially when there are hours and hours of interview videos available.

That doesn't change the fact that you seem to be in "just asking questions" mode.

Would you want to be put on the dock for murder based on someone's interpretation of your facial expressions during an interview?

Seriously.

 

[lionking]

That might be your problem, but it is baseless. Taped interview videos are used all the time including in research and in education. In fact, using videos in research allows us to compare different observer's results.

One doesn't need to see an interview live, especially when there are hours and hours of interview videos available.

So you are seriously suggesting that you can get as many non-verbal clues in a taped interview as talking to someone face to face? Rubbish.

The fact that taped interviews are used in research and education means nothing in a forensic context.

 

[Wildy]

Well let's start with your links which actually demonstrate my point, not yours.

Which if I remember correctly was that you believe that the DNA evidence got under her fingernails by touching a door handle or something like that.

Here's the first one:The poor shedders you refer are only poor shedders for 6 hours after washing their hands.

In other words, lots of DNA is transferred from every person to a surface except during the first 6 hours after good hand washing. In that case it is not consistently transferred by everyone, but it is still transferred by some.

Which demonstrates your point how?

Your third link concludes:

[...]

That's exactly what I've been saying here.

And nobody has actually said that we shouldn't be studying that. What comes across to me from your arguments is that we should most likely just discard the DNA evidence because it may be coincidental, even though there is other evidence that suggests that there was an intruder.

They are not testing kids with dirty hands at a Christmas Party, or picking up a penny in the street or any other number of scenarios kids are commonly involved in.

So what kind of differences would you expect to see from an experiment that does look at those scenarios?

The fact the FBI found someone's DNA on brand new packaged underwear (my link) is significant by itself.

And what, in your opinion, is the significance of it?

But your premise seems to be no tertiary transfer occurs and you post 2 articles that urge caution interpreting results and a single study where tertiary transfer was not found in adults at their worksite.

I never said that no tertiary transfer occurs, and none of the studies were actually looking at tertiary transfer. The only mention of tertiary transfer in the links I posted was in the last one, which stated that the only known "experiment" on tertiary transfer was undertaken by an unaccredited laboratory which didn't publish their work.

I guarantee you if you look for tertiary and even transfer beyond that at any daycare, kindergarten, or first grade classroom, you will indeed find it.

So tertiary transfer only exists in daycares, kindergartens or classrooms?

So it would seem your demand to know if the unknown male DNA at the crime scene came from a heavy or light shedder is a moot point.

But I never made that demand.

There is no certainty the unknown male DNA at the crime scene represents a kid's dirty hands or an intruder.

And? That doesn't mean that you can just disregard the evidence because you don't know where it came from.

And you certainly haven't made the case the JBR crime scene DNA likely comes from an intruder.

Because "they staged the crime scene" with respect to any other evidence that suggests an intruder. Personally considering the evidence for an intruder I would say that the DNA is more likely to come from an intruder then from an unrelated person.



By the way, are you going to get round to responding to post #281?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That doesn't change the fact that you seem to be in "just asking questions" mode.

Would you want to be put on the dock for murder based on someone's interpretation of your facial expressions during an interview?

Seriously.

That's a straw man. I'm tired of addressing it. I made a point of telling you it was a straw man and here you are repeating it anyway. I'm disappointed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you are seriously suggesting that you can get as many non-verbal clues in a taped interview as talking to someone face to face? Rubbish.

The fact that taped interviews are used in research and education means nothing in a forensic context.

Multiple interviews, education and experience diagnosing abuse, and all the rest of the evidence.


Tell me folks is it really that hard to understand the concept of a full assessment of a lot of different evidence, not one single thing?

 

[lionking]

Appeal to (false) authority noted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which if I remember correctly was that you believe that the DNA evidence got under her fingernails by touching a door handle or something like that.

You still don't seem to get the concept: one cannot draw conclusions from evidence that has not been established to show what you claim it is showing.

You cannot use the 'touch' DNA at all in this case unless you can establish it means something. In a court of law, any good defense attorney could get that touch DNA tossed out in a hot flash. Because the meaning of finding touch DNA on a child's hands and on clothing the child would have put those hands on has not been established as providing reliable evidence in a case like this one.

Which demonstrates your point how?

This has been answered more than once.

And nobody has actually said that we shouldn't be studying that. What comes across to me from your arguments is that we should most likely just discard the DNA evidence because it may be coincidental, even though there is other evidence that suggests that there was an intruder.

So here are people arguing I should discard my experience with diagnosing abuse and the evidence based assessment of the abnormalities in the Ramsey interviews because people not familiar with the science doubt it, and we have a scientific technique which is definitely not yet supportable as reliable evidence but that is OK and should be used?

And you think my posts are ironic?

So what kind of differences would you expect to see from an experiment that does look at those scenarios?

This has been answered several times.

And what, in your opinion, is the significance of it?

The significance of finding human DNA from the factory in brand new stockings is that JBR had on new underwear right out of the package. Some factory worker's DNA could have gotten on her hands from the packaging. We'll never know because the police didn't test any of the unused panties from the pack. They didn't even collect the package as evidence until years after the crime even though it was very odd JBR had on underwear that was 6 sizes too big.

I never said that no tertiary transfer occurs, and none of the studies were actually looking at tertiary transfer. The only mention of tertiary transfer in the links I posted was in the last one, which stated that the only known "experiment" on tertiary transfer was undertaken by an unaccredited laboratory which didn't publish their work.

So tertiary transfer only exists in daycares, kindergartens or classrooms?

But I never made that demand.

You seem to have lost track of the discussion. These comments are non sequiturs.

And? That doesn't mean that you can just disregard the evidence because you don't know where it came from.

So you would convict an innocent person if JBR happened to get someone's body fluids on her hands? Or you would exonerate possibly guilty parents because JBR had dirty hands?

Because "they staged the crime scene" with respect to any other evidence that suggests an intruder. Personally considering the evidence for an intruder I would say that the DNA is more likely to come from an intruder then from an unrelated person.

It doesn't change my opinion that other people using their experience and knowledge have come to different conclusions than I have come to. And you are welcome to your opinion.

By the way, are you going to get round to responding to post #281?

No. It began with a false claim that because you either didn't understand my answer, or didn't like it, I was avoiding answering. I try not to respond to those kind of childish retorts.

You are welcome to try again without the insults.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Appeal to (false) authority noted.

What false authority appeal. People in the thread have their opinions based on their knowledge and experience and I have mine based on my knowledge and experience.

Now if I was claiming you all should adopt my conclusion because I'm am an expert, you could make your charge. But that is not what I've said.

I've said I have drawn my conclusions based on my education and years of experience plus the evidence plus the interviews. I described what my experience was. And what you all expect me to do is ignore that experience and education simply because you don't have the same. You don't have the knowledge in question so I should ignore mine? I haven't asked anyone to take my word for it or use my education and experience.

I'm unsure why it's being so readily dismissed here, but that is everyone's own choice. If someone said to me there was a body of knowledge about child abuse which included assessing that abuse, I would at least recognize it made sense.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, it's akin to dismissing something like dark matter because you have no idea how someone could possibly detect something one cannot see.

 

[lionking]

You don't have the knowledge in question so I should ignore mine?

How on earth do you know that I (and others) don't have the knowledge you profess? The arrogance of your posts is breathtaking. You started the same stuff in the Amanda Knox thread before retreating before real knowledge.

 

[Wildy]

You still don't seem to get the concept: one cannot draw conclusions from evidence that has not been established to show what you claim it is showing.

And? One cannot just ignore evidence just because there isn't any more DNA to compare it to.

You cannot use the 'touch' DNA at all in this case unless you can establish it means something. In a court of law, any good defense attorney could get that touch DNA tossed out in a hot flash. Because the meaning of finding touch DNA on a child's hands and on clothing the child would have put those hands on has not been established as providing reliable evidence in a case like this one.

And until you can determine that it doesn't mean something you can't just ignore it.

You did say that the DNA came from her fingernails, but you haven't suggested how the DNA could get under them.

So here are people arguing I should discard my experience with diagnosing abuse and the evidence based assessment of the abnormalities in the Ramsey interviews because people not familiar with the science doubt it, and we have a scientific technique which is definitely not yet supportable as reliable evidence but that is OK and should be used?

I suggest that you tell that to Bradley John Murdoch, or Mijailo Mijailović. In both cases touch DNA analysis was one piece of evidence used to convict those men.

The significance of finding human DNA from the factory in brand new stockings is that JBR had on new underwear right out of the package. Some factory worker's DNA could have gotten on her hands from the packaging. We'll never know because the police didn't test any of the unused panties from the pack. They didn't even collect the package as evidence until years after the crime even though it was very odd JBR had on underwear that was 6 sizes too big.

However that still doesn't rule out the possibility that they were touched by someone after they were taken out of the package.

I never said that no tertiary transfer occurs, and none of the studies were actually looking at tertiary transfer. The only mention of tertiary transfer in the links I posted was in the last one, which stated that the only known "experiment" on tertiary transfer was undertaken by an unaccredited laboratory which didn't publish their work.

So tertiary transfer only exists in daycares, kindergartens or classrooms?

But I never made that demand.

You seem to have lost track of the discussion. These comments are non sequiturs.

I'll accept that the bold quote is a non-sequitur but you're going to tell me how the other two are. The first part is based on your response being a based on a faulty premise and the last one points out that you've stated that I made a demand when in fact I did no such thing.

So you would convict an innocent person if JBR happened to get someone's body fluids on her hands? Or you would exonerate possibly guilty parents because JBR had dirty hands?

Frankly, since we don't know who the DNA belongs to, I'm not going to give an answer.

No. It began with a false claim that because you either didn't understand my answer, or didn't like it, I was avoiding answering. I try not to respond to those kind of childish retorts.

You are welcome to try again without the insults.

Or you could just ignore those parts and respond to the rest of my post. It's not that hard. If you take a good hard look at this post you'll see that I've responded to some things and not to others for various reasons. However, I'll try to keep your precious sensitivities in mind in future.

 

[Elaedith]

So you are seriously suggesting that you can get as many non-verbal clues in a taped interview as talking to someone face to face? Rubbish.

The fact that taped interviews are used in research and education means nothing in a forensic context.

Actually there is evidence that people conducting an interview face to face may be worse at detecting deceit than people observing the interview. It might go against what commonsense says, but a lot of findings from research in this area contradict popular belief.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It's unlikely this was the case in this interview. It's a distinguishable difference.

I've seen the interview, and I read her analysis. It sounds very likely that this was the case. He was answering a question he'd probably answered a thousand times before.

As you say, the observation of the smile was objective, not subjective. I can see that you object to the interpretation being offered in the blog as if the interpretation was the observation.

But you have to go back to the evidence this blogger was indeed identified as being good at detecting deceit. I can't vouch for that evidence. I did find a web site showing there was a professor who did systematically look for people who were naturally good at detecting deceit. The information coincides with Frank and Ekman's work including the finding that a few people are naturally good at detecting deceit.

My point is that "detecting deceit" tells you little, by itself. Even if we had a machine that 100% of the time could tell you, "This person is pretending to be calm and cool, but he's really masking joy and happiness," there is a whole lot of additional analysis after that. That is what I question here. The underlying assumption of her analysis is that a person who is a) wrongly accused of a crime b) had their daughter murdered c) knew a killer was still out there, would only feel anger, and not happiness, if the finger was finally pointed away from them. That analysis has nothing to do with her detecting deceit. It has to do with her knowledge of how someone in such a situation should react. Barring any scientific study of someone in such a situation (and she doesn't mention any), she is making an assumption.

And, the analysis by this blog writer is consistent with every interview the Ramseys did after the murder. It wasn't a single smile. It was one abnormal facial expression after another from both parents from the beginning to the last interview.

Then that makes me even more skeptical of the entire analysis here.

Again, you seem to be starting with the premise it is impossible to ever assess the emotional reaction to a child's death. While you may not like this person's description of what one should see and that the Ramsey's didn't display a reaction within the expected range, it's a false premise that there are no normal and abnormal reactions.

That's not the premise I am going on. But "normal" does have a degree of confidence attached to it. If the "normal" reaction of someone occurs say, 51% of the time, then deviation from that norm is a lot less significant than if it is expected 99% of the time. But even assuming there is a significant "normal" I question that she has the experience to know what "normal" is for the parents of a murder victim. I haven't seen anything that suggests she has the experience or knowledge in that arena.

There is also the fact that the Ramseys are not just people who are reacting to the death of a child. If they are innocent, they are reacting to the murder of a child, and to being accused of the crime, and to intense media pressure. So which "normal" emotion are they supposed to express? The "normal" emotion of having a child murdered, or the "normal" emotion of someone being accused of a crime, or the "normal" emotion of someone being splashed on the front pages of newspapers? All of those things impact how they might act and what they might feel. Emotions don't exist in isolation.

I don't know anything about the person in the EyesForLies blog except her claim to have been identified by the search for people whose accuracy was documented in an experimental setting. I do know she is describing the micro-emotion cues identified by Frank and Ekman.

And even Frank and Ekman will tell you that detecting that someone is concealing an emotion is not, by itself, proof of anything aside from that they are concealing an emotion. Further facts and analysis would be needed to understand a) why they are concealing that emotion and b) whether the underlying emotion they really have is "normal" or not. A single faulty assumption in that type of analysis can result in an entirely incorrect conclusion.

So even if I grant that you or anyone else can pick out people being deceitful, in this type of case there are many more question one would need to answer to know if it is even suspicious, let alone that it points toward guilt. E.g.:
- What is a "normal" reaction for someone in a substantially similar situation?
- What is the confidence level of the normal/expected reaction?
- Are there are things going on that might impact that reaction and make it abnormal?

And so on.

 

[db2431]

Im fairly well read up on this case and from reading this thread nobody apart from Skeptic Ginger has bothered to read in to the case deep enough to give informed opinions and is evidently clear from most of the replies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How on earth do you know that I (and others) don't have the knowledge you profess? The arrogance of your posts is breathtaking. You started the same stuff in the Amanda Knox thread before retreating before real knowledge.

Because so far I've not seen a single post acknowledging there exists a body of scientific data on child abuse and scientific data on diagnosing (aka assessing) it.

I've only seen claims it cannot be done.

 

[Piggy]

That's a straw man. I'm tired of addressing it. I made a point of telling you it was a straw man and here you are repeating it anyway. I'm disappointed.

Don't be.

Because it's not a straw man.

I made 2 points, altho one was quite vague, I admit.

I was serious about the "just asking questions mode" -- that is, you're discarding the central arc of the narrative in favor of marginalia.

The analysis of the tapes is just one of your marginal points.

Let's be clear, this is an unusual case. If it weren't, it wouldn't still be open, and we wouldn't have a reversal from the DA (which is exceedingly rare).

A certain small percentage of cases are going to defy the norm. To condemn the Ramseys because of that fact -- which is what your argument amounts to, taken as a whole -- is not at all convincing.

 

[Piggy]

Because so far I've not seen a single post acknowledging there exists a body of scientific data on child abuse and scientific data on diagnosing (aka assessing) it.

I've only seen claims it cannot be done.

Yes, you're correct, but what does that get us?

There's a broad spectrum of behavior when it comes to child abuse, as well as murder. The majority of cases fall within the big lump of the bell curve, but some do not.

Even the best profilers of serial killers, for instance, get the occasional surprise.

 

[Piggy]

Im fairly well read up on this case and from reading this thread nobody apart from Skeptic Ginger has bothered to read in to the case deep enough to give informed opinions and is evidently clear from most of the replies.

So what is your opinion of SG's arguments?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've seen the interview, and I read her analysis. It sounds very likely that this was the case. He was answering a question he'd probably answered a thousand times before.

I wouldn't know without re-watching this particular exchange. I'll try to find a video inline. But this is a single point that even if true, is not unexpected. Eyesforlies is a lay person who claims to be good at observing micro-emotions. You agree the nod she observed occurred. If her interpretation is wrong, it doesn't negate her skills (which we only have her claim of, and corroboration that 13,000 people were tested by O'Sullivan), and the evidence and scientific papers supporting the validity of the technique.

My point is that "detecting deceit" tells you little, by itself. Even if we had a machine that 100% of the time could tell you, "This person is pretending to be calm and cool, but he's really masking joy and happiness," there is a whole lot of additional analysis after that. That is what I question here. The underlying assumption of her analysis is that a person who is a) wrongly accused of a crime b) had their daughter murdered c) knew a killer was still out there, would only feel anger, and not happiness, if the finger was finally pointed away from them. That analysis has nothing to do with her detecting deceit. It has to do with her knowledge of how someone in such a situation should react. Barring any scientific study of someone in such a situation (and she doesn't mention any), she is making an assumption.

You need to put the disclaimers of Frank and Ekman into perspective. They are right to discourage people from jumping to quick conclusions about their hypothesis and work. The medical community does the same on a regular basis discouraging people from taking the basics of a diagnosis and assuming they can then go on to diagnose a condition or disease.

There are dozens and dozens of papers on this technique. The observations give tangible information about a person's deceit. It's not just that they are useless observations where no meaning can be assigned to the observations. You are taking Ekman's words of caution out of context.

I've spent time learning to at least see the flashes of emotion we are talking about. That's the first step. If you read one of the first papers they published, Ekman said he took some videos where one person admitted lying. Ekman went back over the video again and again until he saw the cue. From then on he became better and better at recognizing, identifying and classifying the facial and other flashes of concealed emotion. He has demonstrated the technique works, and can be taught.

Then that makes me even more skeptical of the entire analysis here.

Multiple observations of two different people demonstrating similar consistent deceit makes you more skeptical? Why?

That's not the premise I am going on. But "normal" does have a degree of confidence attached to it. If the "normal" reaction of someone occurs say, 51% of the time, then deviation from that norm is a lot less significant than if it is expected 99% of the time. But even assuming there is a significant "normal" I question that she has the experience to know what "normal" is for the parents of a murder victim. I haven't seen anything that suggests she has the experience or knowledge in that arena.

You are back to the lay person who is detecting deceit. Her explanations of why her observations detect deceit are not coming from an expert, they are coming from a person with a demonstrated skill detecting deceit.

On the other hand, I doubt many people would tell you the Ramsey's behavior after their child's murder was normal. Just about anyone observing those two would have at least said their behavior was odd. So lay people with little experience in grieving can tell something is amiss.

Then you have people being politically correct saying we don't dare judge any behavior as abnormal because ????? Because no one can possibly know what is normal? Because any behavior, regardless, must be within the range of normal given the severity of the trauma? Or because lots of people judge people on the wrong basis and get it wrong, therefore no one should be expected to have a valid basis to get it right?

This is not what medical, nursing, and psycho-social research supports. That research supports the conclusion there is abnormal behavior after a loss or other trauma, it is quantifiable, identifiable and it is teachable.

Contrary to what Wildly would like to see, it is not teachable from a link to a paragraph in a textbook, or in an abstract, or in a link to a guide on normal behavior. But it is teachable to medical, nursing and psycho-social professionals in their educational programs and with sufficient experience. And a few people seem to be good at psycho-social assessments without formal education. I was not one of them. Eyesforlies might be, I don't know.

There is also the fact that the Ramseys are not just people who are reacting to the death of a child. If they are innocent, they are reacting to the murder of a child, and to being accused of the crime, and to intense media pressure. So which "normal" emotion are they supposed to express? The "normal" emotion of having a child murdered, or the "normal" emotion of someone being accused of a crime, or the "normal" emotion of someone being splashed on the front pages of newspapers? All of those things impact how they might act and what they might feel. Emotions don't exist in isolation.

So complexity means we can't assess the situation?

And even Frank and Ekman will tell you that detecting that someone is concealing an emotion is not, by itself, proof of anything aside from that they are concealing an emotion. Further facts and analysis would be needed to understand a) why they are concealing that emotion and b) whether the underlying emotion they really have is "normal" or not. A single faulty assumption in that type of analysis can result in an entirely incorrect conclusion.

Once again, a single interview is not the only evidence here. Even all the interviews are not the only evidence here.

So even if I grant that you or anyone else can pick out people being deceitful, in this type of case there are many more question one would need to answer to know if it is even suspicious, let alone that it points toward guilt. E.g.:
- What is a "normal" reaction for someone in a substantially similar situation?
- What is the confidence level of the normal/expected reaction?
- Are there are things going on that might impact that reaction and make it abnormal?

And so on.

I'm confident any good, experienced psychologist or nurse would conclude the behavior of these parents was at least outside the range of normal, even considering the entire circumstances, with a high degree of confidence.