The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 30

[LondonJohn]

This is what another military interrogator, Jason Waller, had to say about body language:



Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer know the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.

Oh it's much more than arrogance IMO. It's actually a firm indication that they are either indulging in, or condoning/allowing, pseudoscience claptrap in the search for clickbait statistics. For exactly the reasons you set out above.

 

[Numbers]

Oh it's much more than arrogance IMO. It's actually a firm indication that they are either indulging in, or condoning/allowing, pseudoscience claptrap in the search for clickbait statistics. For exactly the reasons you set out above.

The four body language panel "experts" make money from selling their books, courses, and in-person talks.

Every time they publicly "analyze" a politician or celebrity, including Amanda Knox, they are merely advertising.

 

[Bill Williams]

The four body language panel "experts" make money from selling their books, courses, and in-person talks.

Every time they publicly "analyze" a politician or celebrity, including Amanda Knox, they are merely advertising.

No one ever lost money telling a gullible public what that public thinks they already know.

All except Nick van der Leek, that is.

 

[LondonJohn]

The four body language panel "experts" make money from selling their books, courses, and in-person talks.

Every time they publicly "analyze" a politician or celebrity, including Amanda Knox, they are merely advertising.

Yep. And as a general rule, it's always an excellent idea to consider the question "Cui bono?" when looking at things like this.....

 

[Stacyhs]

This video of Bowden's Nike streaking commercial gives me a whole new take on 'body language'! Thank goodness for the blur feature.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMv...HIgVXAyr8Rrkuo9HP0T3V2yYOqFdeQMCLo6GkePN6ZU7E

 

[Welshman]

This is what another military interrogator, Jason Waller, had to say about body language:



Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer known the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.

If there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele as Vixen constantly boasts, why does Vixen has to resort to using body language rather than actual evidence to argue her case and is unable to answer this question.

 

[Bill Williams]

If there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele as Vixen constantly boasts, why does Vixen has to resort to using body language rather than actual evidence to argue her case and is unable to answer this question.

This what John Douglas implied. It says all that needs to be said that guilter-nutters don't get it.

 

[LondonJohn]

This what John Douglas implied. It says all that needs to be said that guilter-nutters don't get it.

Yes.

And in fact, even if/when body language is employed as a tool by law enforcement agencies, it must only ever be used as a pre-screening tool. For example, suppose a crime is committed, and the police quickly identify and question - as witnesses at this point - several people, each of whom they feel might possibly have something to do with the crime.

Now, it would then be both permissible and potentially useful for a body language specialist to analyse the witnesses, and try to make a determination about which (if any) of them was exhibiting signs that made themselves appear suspicious. This then might (potentially) serve as a useful tool for the police, who could focus most of their time and resources into investigating that one person in much more depth, in a search for evidence of guilt.

But - and this cannot be stressed highly enough - body language is not (and can never be) evidence, in and of itself, of guilt. And precious few courts, if any, would entertain the introduction of body language as evidence.

In short, the only viable use of body language analysis in criminal investigations/prosecutions is right at the start of the investigation process, as a tool to allow police to focus on maybe one or two out of several potential suspects (though of course with the understanding that if no actual evidence is found which points at either of these two, police will then need to move on to investigating others).

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes.

And in fact, even if/when body language is employed as a tool by law enforcement agencies, it must only ever be used as a pre-screening tool. For example, suppose a crime is committed, and the police quickly identify and question - as witnesses at this point - several people, each of whom they feel might possibly have something to do with the crime.

Now, it would then be both permissible and potentially useful for a body language specialist to analyse the witnesses, and try to make a determination about which (if any) of them was exhibiting signs that made themselves appear suspicious. This then might (potentially) serve as a useful tool for the police, who could focus most of their time and resources into investigating that one person in much more depth, in a search for evidence of guilt.

But - and this cannot be stressed highly enough - body language is not (and can never be) evidence, in and of itself, of guilt. And precious few courts, if any, would entertain the introduction of body language as evidence.

In short, the only viable use of body language analysis in criminal investigations/prosecutions is right at the start of the investigation process, as a tool to allow police to focus on maybe one or two out of several potential suspects (though of course with the understanding that if no actual evidence is found which points at either of these two, police will then need to move on to investigating others).

Otherwise, why not just play a video of the interrogation for the jury? Let them see the defendant raise an eyebrow a bit too high, look to the right once too often, draw the corner of the mouth down a few times, fail to look the interrogator in the eye when answering a question or cross their arms at the wrong time and then decide on guilt or innocence? Or just cut to the chase and look them in the eyes?

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes.

And in fact, even if/when body language is employed as a tool by law enforcement agencies, it must only ever be used as a pre-screening tool. For example, suppose a crime is committed, and the police quickly identify and question - as witnesses at this point - several people, each of whom they feel might possibly have something to do with the crime.

About the only other use for Body Language analysis is to coach someone on their resting faces (as StacyHS said), or their natural body posture. Their "resting pose" may look odd or "suspicious". Someone who knows the lay of the land might be able to coach someone not to do those things.....

It's veracity falls off greatly when the claim is that it is predictive.

 

[Numbers]

This video of Bowden's Nike streaking commercial gives me a whole new take on 'body language'! Thank goodness for the blur feature.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMv...HIgVXAyr8Rrkuo9HP0T3V2yYOqFdeQMCLo6GkePN6ZU7E

What better evidence could exist of the scientific (un)seriousness of a body language expert than Bowden's performance as a streaker?

 

[Stacyhs]

What better evidence could exist of the scientific (un)seriousness of a body language expert than Bowden's performance as a streaker?

He's no 'expert'. I'd bet he's garnered all his 'knowledge' from pilfering from other people's books and reading articles from the internet then regurgitating it all in his books. Rather reminds me of Nick van der Leek.

 

[Numbers]

Here are some excerpts from an interesting article about some research which could explain why some persons continue to hold negative views of Knox or Sollecito even after their final acquittal on the murder/rape charges and the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy that Italy had violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.

Fake news can distort people’s beliefs even after being debunked.

....
Ghent University researchers Jonas De keersmaecker and Arne Roets first had over 400 subjects take a personality test. They then randomly assigned each subject to one of two conditions. In the experimental condition, the subjects read a biographical description of a young woman named Nathalie. The bio explained that Nathalie, a nurse at a local hospital, “was arrested for stealing drugs from the hospital; she has been stealing drugs for 2 years and selling them on the street in order to buy designer clothes.” The subjects then rated Nathalie on traits such as trustworthiness and sincerity, after which they took a test of cognitive ability. Finally, the subjects saw a message on their computer screen explicitly stating that the information about Nathalie stealing drugs and getting arrested was not true, and then rated her again on the same traits. The control condition was identical, except that subjects were not given the paragraph with the false information and rated Nathalie only once.

The subjects in the experimental condition initially rated Nathalie much more negatively than did the subjects in the control condition. This was not surprising, considering that they had just learned she was a thief and a drug dealer. The interesting question was whether cognitive ability would predict attitude adjustment—that is, the degree to which the subjects in the experimental condition would rate Nathalie more favorably after being told that this information was false. It did: subjects high in cognitive ability adjusted their ratings more than did those lower in cognitive ability. The subjects with lower cognitive ability had more trouble shaking their negative first impression of Nathalie. This was true even after the researchers statistically controlled for the subjects’ level of open-mindedness (their willingness to change their mind when wrong) and right-wing authoritarianism (their intolerance toward others), as assessed by the personality test. Thus, even if a person was open-minded and tolerant, a low level of cognitive ability put them at risk for being unjustifiably harsh in their second evaluation of Nathalie.

One possible explanation for this finding is based on the theory that a person’s cognitive ability reflects how well they can regulate the contents of working memory—their “mental workspace” for processing information. ....

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cognitive-ability-and-vulnerability-to-fake-news/

 

[Numbers]

Here are some excerpts from an interesting article about some research which could explain why some persons continue to hold negative views of Knox or Sollecito even after their final acquittal on the murder/rape charges and the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy that Italy had violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.



Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cognitive-ability-and-vulnerability-to-fake-news/

Here is the abstract of the original article. Note that the actual number of subjects was 390, not 400, according to the abstract.

Abstract

The present experiment (N = 390) examined how people adjust their judgment after they learn that crucial information on which their initial evaluation was based is incorrect. In line with our expectations, the results showed that people generally do adjust their attitudes, but the degree to which they correct their assessment depends on their cognitive ability. In particular, individuals with lower levels of cognitive ability adjusted their attitudes to a lesser extent than individuals with higher levels of cognitive ability. Moreover, for those with lower levels of cognitive ability, even after the explicit disconfirmation of the false information, adjusted attitudes remained biased and significantly different from the attitudes of the control group who was never exposed to the incorrect information. In contrast, the adjusted attitudes of those with higher levels of cognitive ability were similar to those of the control group. Controlling for need for closure and right-wing authoritarianism did not influence the relationship between cognitive ability and attitude adjustment. The present results indicate that, even in optimal circumstances, the initial influence of incorrect information cannot simply be undone by pointing out that this information was incorrect, especially in people with relatively lower cognitive ability.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289617301617

‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions

De keersmaecker, J and Roets, A

Intelligence, Nov. 2017, vol. 65:107-110

 

[Stacyhs]

In other words, people who have difficulty absorbing facts and information of the case past the Massei trial continue to believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

 

[TruthCalls]

In other words, people who have difficulty absorbing facts and information of the case past the Massei trial continue to believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

That's what happens when a global media relentlessly informs people of what an evil bitch Amanda is and the Massei court confirms it.

I had the benefit of not paying much attention to the case until just before the Hellmann verdict, so I hadn't been jaded by all the bogus reporting. I was fascinated by the polar opposite findings of the two courts (Massei & Hellmann) and started researching. By that time it was becoming easier to separate fact from fiction, but if you were already convinced of her guilt then you likely weren't interested.

 

[Numbers]

That's what happens when a global media relentlessly informs people of what an evil bitch Amanda is and the Massei court confirms it.

I had the benefit of not paying much attention to the case until just before the Hellmann verdict, so I hadn't been jaded by all the bogus reporting. I was fascinated by the polar opposite findings of the two courts (Massei & Hellmann) and started researching. By that time it was becoming easier to separate fact from fiction, but if you were already convinced of her guilt then you likely weren't interested.

The experiment by the Ghent U. researchers used a group of subjects who were no doubt initially (before reading the fictitious biography) neutral regarding the fictitious nurse. And the subjects had no ideological or commercial interest in promoting or maintaining certain views even after reading the fictitious biography.

But in the case of Knox and Sollecito, after the general public became aware of the case often through the inaccurate and slanted media articles, some of that public may have become fixed on a view of guilt not merely because of a low cognitive ability, but rather because of an ideological viewpoint or a commercial interest.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's what happens when a global media relentlessly informs people of what an evil bitch Amanda is and the Massei court confirms it.

Except that the Massei court does not uphold that part of it. The Massei court, even in eventually convicting, was presented with prosecution theories which changed frequently - so much so that the Massei motivations report explaining the guilty verdict had to invent a completely different motive.

The motive for the killing was Guede's and Guede's alone, acc. to Massei. Massei specifically wrote that he could see both no evidence and no motive for AK and/or RS to initiate an attack on the victim.

But Massei theorized that eventually, both AK and RS joined in on the attack. In theorizing about that, did Massei return to anything that the prosecution had presented at trial? Satanic rite? Sex-game gone wrong? No.

Massei said it had been a "choice for evil", a choice made while AK had been away from her otherwise normal home, and far from the normal moral strictures she had otherwise been used to. Massei theorized that it was a one-off evil choice made by an otherwise non-evil person - or at the very least with nothing in her background to explain the choice.

I had the benefit of not paying much attention to the case until just before the Hellmann verdict, so I hadn't been jaded by all the bogus reporting. I was fascinated by the polar opposite findings of the two courts (Massei & Hellmann) and started researching. By that time it was becoming easier to separate fact from fiction, but if you were already convinced of her guilt then you likely weren't interested.

Me to. It has occurred to me that if I had been in on it since the beginning, my own confirmation biases could have developed differently.

 

[Stacyhs]

The experiment by the Ghent U. researchers used a group of subjects who were no doubt initially (before reading the fictitious biography) neutral regarding the fictitious nurse. And the subjects had no ideological or commercial interest in promoting or maintaining certain views even after reading the fictitious biography.

But in the case of Knox and Sollecito, after the general public became aware of the case often through the inaccurate and slanted media articles, some of that public may have become fixed on a view of guilt not merely because of a low cognitive ability, but rather because of an ideological viewpoint or a commercial interest.

Once someone forms an opinion, even if based on erroneous information that they are then informed about, many will cling to that opinion rather than admit they were wrong. Some people just have an incredibly difficult time admitting they are wrong about anything.

 

[TruthCalls]

Except that the Massei court does not uphold that part of it. The Massei court, even in eventually convicting, was presented with prosecution theories which changed frequently - so much so that the Massei motivations report explaining the guilty verdict had to invent a completely different motive.

The motive for the killing was Guede's and Guede's alone, acc. to Massei. Massei specifically wrote that he could see both no evidence and no motive for AK and/or RS to initiate an attack on the victim.

But Massei theorized that eventually, both AK and RS joined in on the attack. In theorizing about that, did Massei return to anything that the prosecution had presented at trial? Satanic rite? Sex-game gone wrong? No.

Massei said it had been a "choice for evil", a choice made while AK had been away from her otherwise normal home, and far from the normal moral strictures she had otherwise been used to. Massei theorized that it was a one-off evil choice made by an otherwise non-evil person - or at the very least with nothing in her background to explain the choice.


Me to. It has occurred to me that if I had been in on it since the beginning, my own confirmation biases could have developed differently.

While that might be technically correct, I would imagine >95% of the people who knew of the case and then heard of the conviction ONLY paid attention to the conviction, and that, in turn, confirmed that everything they had heard about Amanda must be true.

I agree... we all have confirmation bias. It could not have been easy to read/listen to the media those first couple of years and NOT conclude anything other than the worst about Amanda. To change your opinion after that would require major commitment to accepting facts and dismissing rumor and innuendo.