It negates her analysis of the Ramseys in this situation, and it reveals a certain amount of confirmation bias.
Only if you ignore the O'Sullivan research, which you seem to be doing. If one assumes EyesForLies was indeed identified out of 13,000 people as belonging to a group of people skilled at detecting deceit, then you'd be dismissing a skilled person because you found one aspect of an analysis you might be able to argue another conclusion for. Yet you don't claim any expertise, you were unlikely familiar with the technique until this thread, and EyesForLies' observations are consistent with the technique.
You are in essence dismissing something you have no expertise in because you find it incredulous someone else could possibly have such expertise.
No, I'm not taking his words out of context. You're missing my point, and his: detecting that the Ramseys are concealing an emotion, in and of itself, is not proof that they are lying about murdering their child. Much as you claim that there are "multiple explanations" for touch DNA being in three different places (including in a blood spot inside of JonBenet's panties), there are multiple explanations for people's behavior, particularly in complex situations.
I have read quite a bit about Frank and Ekman's hypothesis and work. I can tell you with confidence you are taking the words of caution out of context. They are meant to caution dabblers in the technique from jumping to conclusions just as I would caution someone not to think they should diagnose their own illnesses after learning a few basic things about the symptoms.
I recommend you look at Ekman's public demonstrations of the technique. You won't find him drawing vague conclusions about his observations. You will find him repeating his caution to people new to the research. I recommend you read some of the study methodologies. You will find some with more specific outcome measures than, "something was detected but we can't interpret it".
No, potentially misinterpreting the same actions multiple times makes me skeptical.
I can understand you stating you remain skeptical despite the reproducibility of the observations. I cannot understand your claim the reproducibility in interview after interview is
evidence of misinterpretation.
Except that the circumstances they were put in when their child was murdered were also abnormal, even for parents dealing with a murdered child. They had a child murdered, in their home, and were subsequently the main (and for a long time, only) people accused of the crime.
This concern has come up again and again along with Silly Green Monkey's claim the range of normal behavior includes any and everything short of severe classic mental illness symptoms.
I repeat my position, there are behaviors indicative of an abusive family dynamic. These behaviors are known, they have been confirmed through years of research, they are taught to nurses and other medical providers and to some police. Learning to assess and diagnose abnormal family dynamics consistent with abusive components is not mysterious, it isn't rocket science, it is possible.
It's easy to overcompensate. In an effort to not falsely accuse someone, it is understandable to take the position one, as an individual, cannot say the behavior of the Ramseys was abnormal. What I caution you to consider, however, is just because one person cannot and should not try to assess certain behaviors, does not mean professionals whose education and experience do provide the skill to make an assessment are incapable of doing so.
Irrelevant. I haven't claimed this.
Yes you have, along with many other people in this thread.
It's not a matter of claiming you have no way of knowing what my education and decades of experience mean. That is understandable. But you and the others in the thread are claiming
no one could possibly have the knowledge or experience to diagnose an abusive family dynamic.
If it's quantifiable, then quantify it: statistically, how far from the norm was the Ramseys behavior?
The interviews were consistent with deceit. Both of them exhibited abnormal micro-emotions in every interview. Their behavior was consistently devoid of the emotion one would see after a loss of a child (and one must look well beyond the first days when shock blunts the emotional response), and it was devoid of emotion toward each other. Anger at the police does not explain the behavior. They both had unusual affects with Patsy's being very flat.
Whatever caused the final event likely involved behavior they both knew about regardless if they were both involved in the death. Both of these parents behaved abnormally without one demonstrating fear of the other. So I don't think one sees the classic domineering abusive father. Exactly which scenario of several possibilities occurred, I don't see enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
It wouldn't surprise me if one day Burke doesn't write some tell all book about the real situation within that household.
No, it means it is much more difficult to assess the situation, and more likely for it to be misinterpreted. The more variables you throw into any situation, the more likely it is that there could be some other explanation for whatever you're seeing.
So again, because you see it as difficult, everyone must be equally incapable.
Well, at least a few very experienced law enforcement professionals have disagreed. John Douglas, for example, has a pretty solid background in forensic psychology, and has specific experience in dealing with both crime victims and perpetrators.
I work with police in my practice. One thing I've learned is police work is not nearly as scientific or evidence based as one would hope. A lot of police have no more than high school or technical college degrees and work their way up to detective on the job. Now, there are some police and detectives that do have a wealth of experience and skill. But it is inconsistent. So I haven't put much credence in any single individual person within the Boulder Corrections system including the judges.
Even someone with skills in psychology could have easily been mislead about this touch DNA, and I think just as these guys were convinced until recently that eyewitnesses were almost infallible, I don't think they get it yet about the problems with touch DNA.
