Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

Christ, I hope you don't get pulled for jury service.

I was called for jury duty once. Since I was a nurse the defense attorney dismissed me on that basis. The crime was domestic abuse. Apparently nurses know too much about domestic abuse for a defense attorney's liking.



Believe it or not, some people are good at reading people's non verbal cues. It's part of my job and certainly part of my education. You have to be able to read a patient's nonverbal cues. It's a bit silly to think I should take everything a patient says to me verbally at face value and ignore my observation of their non-verbal behavior. By the same token, where would we be in taking a medical history if we never studied and quantified the non-verbal cues, and subsequently became able to teach this skill?

My education includes observing certain cues that indicate child abuse, for example. This is not a random skill one has or doesn't have. It is a skill where the behaviors are observed, quantified, verified as indeed being significant and then taught to medical professionals and others who need this skill.

So your assumption it is a stretch to assess non-verbal behavior is unfounded.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Were any dingos seen in the area?

You do know they eventually found evidence that baby was indeed killed by dingos, right?

After all legal options had been exhausted, the chance discovery of a piece of Azaria's clothing in an area full of dingo lairs led to Lindy Chamberlain's release from prison, on "compassionate grounds." She was later exonerated of all charges.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

After losing a child..though not in any circumstances like that, I can tell you it was easier to be an actor than to be myself!
You cannot judge peoples reactions under duress. Not unless youre psychic and psichics are real!

These claims one cannot assess non-verbal behavior are not based on science.

Like I said, if we ignored non-verbal cues as being unreliable, medicine would have to go back to guessing what one was observing. Some people would be naturally good at it and others would be lousy at it.

Instead, these non-verbal cues have been studied and can be taught to people who need the skills when assessing patients for whatever reason. It's not lie detecting, it's not mind reading, but it also is not an imaginary thing that people communicate a lot of things non-verbally.

 

[Rolfe]

My education includes observing certain cues that indicate child abuse, for example. This is not a random skill one has or doesn't have. It is a skill where the behaviors are observed, quantified, verified as indeed being significant and then taught to medical professionals and others who need this skill.

I would submit the cautionary tale of the consultant paediatrician who ended up struck off for doing this.

He watched Sally Clark's husband on TV talking about the deaths of their three babies, regarding the last two of which, his wife had been convicted of murder and jailed. He decided from something about Mr. Clark's demeanour that he himself had killed one of the children, even though he knew nothing at all about the case bar what he'd seen on TV.

He made a formal allegation to the police about Mr. Clark, accusing him or murdering the baby. It turned out Mr. Clark had a cast-iron alibi for the death, having been away from home on business at the time.

Of course, after Sally Clark's life had been irretrievably ruined, it was finally shown that the children had not been murdered at all, by her or anyone else.

Rolfe.

 

[Nova Land]

These claims one cannot assess non-verbal behavior are not based on science...

Instead, these non-verbal cues have been studied and can be taught to people who need the skills when assessing patients for whatever reason. It's not lie detecting, it's not mind reading, but it also is not an imaginary thing that people communicate a lot of things non-verbally.

I agree that much information is communicated non-verbally.

However, the specific skill of being able to detect deceptiveness by reading facial expressions with any good degree of reliability -- which is the aspect you raised, in saying you thought the Ramseys were guilty because of their facial expressions -- is apparently a fairly rare one, according to the research by O'Sullivan and Ekman (or at least according to my cursory reading of their research). Nor -- again, according to my very sketchy reading of their research -- is it one which people are able to acquire, at least not to any great degree of proficiency, through training.

So while I agree that this is potentially a useful tool, I'd be hesitant in placing much confidence in our own abilities to apply it. The fact that you or I or another person-in-the-street may watch a tv interview with someone and think, Ooh, they looked shifty when they said that, is not in my opinion something we should give a lot of weight to.

I'd be inclined to give more weight to the analyses of someone such as Eyes for Lies. But I'm not sure I'd want a court to give much weight to such analyses -- at least not until a lot more testing is done to establish how reliable or unreliable such analyses are.

On the other hand, we're not a court of law in this forum. We're people enjoying ourselves by speculating and theorizing on what the truth of the case might be. Given that, I don't see why you should be criticized for adding in your opinion, based on your personal reading of their facial expressions -- at least not as long as you don't put that forward as a definitive statement which settles the matter (which I don't think you did).

 

[Segnosaur]

Believe it or not, some people are good at reading people's non verbal cues. It's part of my job and certainly part of my education. You have to be able to read a patient's nonverbal cues. It's a bit silly to think I should take everything a patient says to me verbally at face value and ignore my observation of their non-verbal behavior. By the same token, where would we be in taking a medical history if we never studied and quantified the non-verbal cues, and subsequently became able to teach this skill?

My education includes observing certain cues that indicate child abuse, for example. This is not a random skill one has or doesn't have. It is a skill where the behaviors are observed, quantified, verified as indeed being significant and then taught to medical professionals and others who need this skill.

So your assumption it is a stretch to assess non-verbal behavior is unfounded.

First of all, what exactly is your 'accuracy rate' when you do your analysis? Have all your suspicions always been validated? If not, how do you know that at least some of your accusations might be unfounded when you do them at your job?

Secondly, while you might be able to look for 'non-verbal' clues in your job, you do get to interact a lot more closely with the patients you see than you did by just watching the Ramsey's on TV. I also rather suspect that the type of things you're trained to look for are different than what you'd be looking for in the Ramsey case.

Thirdly, you said you're examining the patient for non-verbal clues. Given the fact that those are the people who have experienced the trauma, its quite possible that those people will give more definite clues than the supposed perpetrators.

So, while its possible to gain some information from non-verbal clues, I do not think the accuracy is high enough to over-ride other factors in the case, including the lack of motive and generally contradictory evidence (such as outside debris found at the scene and the presence of items used in the crime that were not found in the house).

 

[Cainkane1]

First of all, what exactly is your 'accuracy rate' when you do your analysis? Have all your suspicions always been validated? If not, how do you know that at least some of your accusations might be unfounded when you do them at your job?

Secondly, while you might be able to look for 'non-verbal' clues in your job, you do get to interact a lot more closely with the patients you see than you did by just watching the Ramsey's on TV. I also rather suspect that the type of things you're trained to look for are different than what you'd be looking for in the Ramsey case.

Thirdly, you said you're examining the patient for non-verbal clues. Given the fact that those are the people who have experienced the trauma, its quite possible that those people will give more definite clues than the supposed perpetrators.

So, while its possible to gain some information from non-verbal clues, I do not think the accuracy is high enough to over-ride other factors in the case, including the lack of motive and generally contradictory evidence (such as outside debris found at the scene and the presence of items used in the crime that were not found in the house).

There used to be a parlor trick called muscle reading. This was way back in the day when people went to nightclubs for acts. Some of these people were very good when it came to knowing what the subject was feeling.

My father was a police officer and he said after awhile you can tell whose telling the truth and whose lying in interrogation as soon as you began talking to them.

Skeptic Ginger isn't completely wrong.

 

[Kestrel]

There used to be a parlor trick called muscle reading. This was way back in the day when people went to nightclubs for acts. Some of these people were very good when it came to knowing what the subject was feeling.

My father was a police officer and he said after awhile you can tell whose telling the truth and whose lying in interrogation as soon as you began talking to them.

Skeptic Ginger isn't completely wrong.

If you look at actual scientific studies, both Skeptic Ginger and your father are wrong.

Consistently, empirical research has shown that many of the behavioural cues that police are trained to use – such as gaze aversion, rigid posture, and fidgeting – are not diagnostic of truth and deception; that laypeople on average are only 54% accurate; that training produces only marginal improvement; and that police investigators, like judges, psychiatrists, customs inspectors, and other professionals who make these judgments for a living, perform only slightly better, if at all.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Richard Wiseman has done some stuff on body language and lying too:

http://www.quirkology.com/UK/Experiment_lying.shtmlhttp://www.richardwiseman.com/research/lying.html

 

[Cainkane1]

If you look at actual scientific studies, both Skeptic Ginger and your father are wrong.

My father interrogated german POW'S and when the war was over he interrogated suspects in a Mutt and Jeff situation. My father was the nicer one who was followed by a not so nice questioner. Whether you believe him or not he and his police co workers say you can tell when a persons lying as soon as they start to talk.

 

[timhau]

If you look at actual scientific studies, both Skeptic Ginger and your father are wrong.

Another quote from that paper:

There is also no evidence for the diagnostic value of the ‘behavioural symptoms’ that investigators are trained to observe in suspects. For example, Kassin and Fong (1999) randomly trained some college students but not others in the use of behavioural cues cited by the aforementioned Reid technique. All students then watched videotaped interviews of mock suspects, some of whom committed one of four mock crimes; others of whom did not. Upon questioning, all suspects denied their involvement. As in the typical non-forensic laboratory experiment, observers were generally unable to differentiate between the two groups of suspects. Moreover, those who underwent training were significantly less accurate, more confident, and more biased toward seeing deception.

In other words, training makes you go wrong more often but with more confidence -- which is more than a little bit scary, especially if they're biased towards seeing deception where there actually is none.

 

[Fnord]

Recently, some friends and I were discussing a theft in our neighborhood. One of them kept mentioning a certain young boy, and how guilty he looked. I asked her "What does 'guilty' look like?"

She described a person with their head down, lack of eye contact, avoids others, walks slowly, and slouches with his hands in his pockets.

I pointed out that his father had just died, and that it was likely that he did not want others to see that he had been crying.

She said that losing one's father was no excuse for thievery.

I asked what made her think he had stolen something.

She said, "He looks guilty."

I tried to explain confirmation bias, but she said that she was a nurse, that she had been trained to judge a person's emotional state, and that the kid looked nothing like someone who should be in mourning.

So how does a person look when they're in mourning?

She said you can tell when someone is in mourning when the keep their head down, lack eye contact, avoid others, walk slowly, slouch with hands in pockets ... and wear sunglasses.

So people, if you steal something, make sure you wear your sunglasses so that nobody thinks you're a thief!

 

[MG1962]

So people, if you steal something, make sure you wear your sunglasses so that nobody thinks you're a thief!

I always thought thiefs wore stripped shirts and carried a bag around with the word loot written on the side of it

 

[timhau]

Fnord's story reminds me once again of the Lake Bodom murder trials, which took place in Finland 4,5 years ago. The murders took place in 1960; three youngsters were murdered while camping, the fourth one of the group suffered severe injuries but survived. 45 years after the fact, the police (who apparently have watched one Cold Case episode too many) bring the survivor in for questioning, and somehow manage to convince the prosecutor's office to bring charges. In the trial, it was revealed that they didn't just have a poor case -- they didn't really have a case at all.

Anyway, the trial was heavily publicized, and the overt actions and apparent moods of the defendant made news almost daily. I also had the pleasure to deal with a person who thought the defendant 'looked guilty'; furthermore, on days he looked grim and worried, he was exhibiting clearly guilty behavior -- he's depressed because he knows he's now been caught. If he was upbeat, he was also obviously guilty -- only a psychopath without a conscience could have committed the murders, and coming to a murder trial as a defendant with a slight smile on your face is something only a psychopath would do.

Any behavior is guilty behavior, for the observer who is already convinced you're guilty.

 

[LTC8K6]

You do know they eventually found evidence that baby was indeed killed by dingos, right?

Sure, that's well known, even here in remotest North Carolina.

Apparently my comedy/sarcasm needs work.

Still, if dingos had been in the area...

 

[Segnosaur]

My father was a police officer and he said after awhile you can tell whose telling the truth and whose lying in interrogation as soon as you began talking to them.

Some of the same issues arise as when I responded to Skeptic Ginger... what is their success ratio? How do they verify that they're analysis of the suspect is correct? Are they only counting situations where they have signed confessions?

I should also point out that there are a couple of other issues when looking at the record of success by your police officer father... I'm assuming that before he starts any interrogation he's probably looked at at least some additional evidence, and his analysis may be clouded by stuff they already know.

Skeptic Ginger isn't completely wrong.

Never said she was completely wrong. I said that A: whatever 'skills' she has in picking up on non-verbal clues might be oriented towards the medical field, not to "lie detection/criminality", and B: even if her skills are better than "random chance", I still doubt they'd be good enough to over-ride other evidence (especially when there are alternate explanations for the parent's behavior).

My father interrogated german POW'S and when the war was over he interrogated suspects in a Mutt and Jeff situation. My father was the nicer one who was followed by a not so nice questioner. Whether you believe him or not he and his police co workers say you can tell when a persons lying as soon as they start to talk.

Same issues here... how did they determine whether their assessment was correct or not?

And what exactly were they interrogating the POWs about?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hmmmm....you know, maybe skeptigirl is right. This person looks guilty and she is guilty. That's all the evidence I need.

 

[Fnord]

I always thought thiefs wore stripped shirts and carried a bag around with the word loot written on the side of it

I think in Britian, the word is 'Swag'...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would submit the cautionary tale of the consultant paediatrician who ended up struck off for doing this.

He watched Sally Clark's husband on TV talking about the deaths of their three babies, regarding the last two of which, his wife had been convicted of murder and jailed. He decided from something about Mr. Clark's demeanour that he himself had killed one of the children, even though he knew nothing at all about the case bar what he'd seen on TV.

He made a formal allegation to the police about Mr. Clark, accusing him or murdering the baby. It turned out Mr. Clark had a cast-iron alibi for the death, having been away from home on business at the time.

Of course, after Sally Clark's life had been irretrievably ruined, it was finally shown that the children had not been murdered at all, by her or anyone else.

Rolfe.

This anecdote is meaningless. You are comparing a single comment, we don't know the doctors' skills regardless of his education, and many other issues.

You couldn't say it was 100% certain they were guilty even if the Ramseys were convicted in a court of law. So I'm not claiming absolute knowledge here. But that's no reason to toss out years of experience reading non-verbal cues in patient interviews including the cues of abusive parents.


I really don't need to convince any of you to be confident in my assessment. That's all for your own assessment. You don't know me nor my skills. But I am going to say that just because we've all discussed the failure of lie detecting is no reason to dismiss the skills of observation outright.

 

[MG1962]

I think in Britian, the word is 'Swag'...

My bad I was thinking only of cat burgulars