I had read Amber Frey's book on Scott Peterson, and this week just read Blood Brother, by his 1/2 sister, Anne Bird, and also Catherine Crier's book, A Deadly Game.
In this latter book, there apparently is a new tool in identifying a potential suspect who is a person of interest, called "Micro-Expression Analysis."
(328):
"At headquarters, Grogan continued to work the evidence. In early March, he reviewed a report from John Yarborough of the Institute of Analytical Interview in Parker, Arizona. Police had mailed Yarborough several videotaped interviews of Scott Peterson for micro-expression analysis. A micro-expression is a very short facial expression of an intense, concealed emotion. Yarborough and his colleagues at the Institute were trained to read and interpret those involuntary messages for emotion.
Yarborough pointed to two occasions where he saw 'significant micro expressions.' The first was when Scott was asked about blood in the truck during an interview with KTBU Channel 2. He said Scott 'micro-expressed' fear when asked a follow-up question if Laci's blood was in the truck. The second 'micro-expression,' this one of anger, came when Scott was questioned about the shades being closed at his home on December 24, during a time when Laci would normally have opened them.
Yarborough indicated these two occasions were 'hot spots,' though he did concede that he didn't know exactly what Scott had been thinking at the time he made those expressions."
--I think that because Scott was considered a Narcissist, and by some as a sociopath, and that he rarely showed any real emotions, and had usually a blank expression or a big grin, this tool was used to trace his true reactions to certain stressful ideas- stressful to him.
I'd not heard of this new technique- and I wonder what validity it has in prosecution. Does anyone know the background, or have heard of this?
I'd like to see Lizzie's inquest testimony filmed and go looking for such expressions, if this is legitimate!
Micro-Expressions
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
And Voice Stress Analysis
When I first heard of Voice Stress Analysis, I remember the National Enquirer using it.
I thought it sounded like a promising tool in law enforcement, to finally take the place of the lie detector.
It seems in the intervening 10 years or so, it has not gained any forensic status, like the lie detector has not yet.
On page 329, the prosecution of Scott Peterson used it on the side to check their case, before arrest. This was just as the case was reclassified as a homicide.
"Grogan also reviewed a Voice Stress Analysis that had been commissioned by a local television station. Expert Al Starewich had performed the test, using videotape interviews of Scott Peterson with members of the media.
Starewich found that Scott was lying when he said he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance. He was telling the truth about some other matters-- injuring his knuckle, for example-- but he was nervous another blood stain was found in his truck. He showed abnormal stress when speaking about saltwater on his clothing, Starewich added, and he lied about telling Laci about Amber. The report concluded that, 'Scott knows that Laci is never coming home.' None of this information would ever be made public, but it may have helped officers tailor their future interactions with Scott."
--I've somehow come to put some stock in Voice Stress Analysis, but I don't think I'd want to be convicted on such "evidence."
Again, I can't help but wonder what these tools could show if used at Lizzie's questioning!
I thought it sounded like a promising tool in law enforcement, to finally take the place of the lie detector.
It seems in the intervening 10 years or so, it has not gained any forensic status, like the lie detector has not yet.
On page 329, the prosecution of Scott Peterson used it on the side to check their case, before arrest. This was just as the case was reclassified as a homicide.
"Grogan also reviewed a Voice Stress Analysis that had been commissioned by a local television station. Expert Al Starewich had performed the test, using videotape interviews of Scott Peterson with members of the media.
Starewich found that Scott was lying when he said he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance. He was telling the truth about some other matters-- injuring his knuckle, for example-- but he was nervous another blood stain was found in his truck. He showed abnormal stress when speaking about saltwater on his clothing, Starewich added, and he lied about telling Laci about Amber. The report concluded that, 'Scott knows that Laci is never coming home.' None of this information would ever be made public, but it may have helped officers tailor their future interactions with Scott."
--I've somehow come to put some stock in Voice Stress Analysis, but I don't think I'd want to be convicted on such "evidence."
Again, I can't help but wonder what these tools could show if used at Lizzie's questioning!
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:26 am
- Real Name:
Oh now this is interesting. I'd never heard of Micro-expression Analysis either, but it may have been around as long as 30 years if not longer.
The link below gives several references to micro-expression analysis, the earliest of which is a book called Unmasking the Face by Ekman and Friesen, published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/context/25426/0
VSA and Micro-Expression analysis would certainly be interesting in Lizzie's case. The only drawback I can think of, such a test would almost have to be done when there were absolutely no drugs at all in her system, in order to get a solid result.
The link below gives several references to micro-expression analysis, the earliest of which is a book called Unmasking the Face by Ekman and Friesen, published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/context/25426/0
VSA and Micro-Expression analysis would certainly be interesting in Lizzie's case. The only drawback I can think of, such a test would almost have to be done when there were absolutely no drugs at all in her system, in order to get a solid result.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:26 am
- Real Name:
Well, I'm not sure actually. I didn't pay much attention to the technical end of it in terms of "modern" applications (computer-based, that is) because most of that appeared to relate to other unrelated things...like gaming for instance. (You may have seen something there that I overlooked, I'll have another go at it when I'm awake
) What I was mainly looking for was some indication as to how old MEA might be. Ekman and Friesen there would indicate at least 30 years.
So MEA seems to be new, but...not so new.
) What I was mainly looking for was some indication as to how old MEA might be. Ekman and Friesen there would indicate at least 30 years. So MEA seems to be new, but...not so new.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I read another interesting viewpoint which I had not really thought about in this book.
It was that *innocent until proven guilty* is technically a legal designation once a suspect has been arrested, charged and indicted- meaning once the person enters into the judicial process- not during any investigation phase.
Courts and court officers are held to this standard but not police or investigators.
Sometimes I determine in my own mind whether I think someone is guilty, after reading about a case or watching TV coverage (or both). I felt a bit presumptuous about that because of the *presumed innocent* dictates, but now I think I see it's human nature to do that in the early days of a crime's publicity and is not necesarily prejudicial later if I were to, say, be called as a jury member.
It was that *innocent until proven guilty* is technically a legal designation once a suspect has been arrested, charged and indicted- meaning once the person enters into the judicial process- not during any investigation phase.
Courts and court officers are held to this standard but not police or investigators.
Sometimes I determine in my own mind whether I think someone is guilty, after reading about a case or watching TV coverage (or both). I felt a bit presumptuous about that because of the *presumed innocent* dictates, but now I think I see it's human nature to do that in the early days of a crime's publicity and is not necesarily prejudicial later if I were to, say, be called as a jury member.
-
nbcatlover
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:10 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: nbcatlover
- Location: New Bedford, MA
Hi Kat--thanks for the information on micro-expressions. I found it very interesting.
Unfortunately, I have a history with domestic violence in my life. I had observed a unique look in the eyes that my ex-significant other would get prior to lying or exploding into violence. The best I can describe it is part defiance, part soullessness.
However, the first time I say O.J. testify, I immediately recognized the look. Scott Peterson did, too. Interestingly, Robert Blake did not. Sadly, Jon Benet Ramsay's father sometimes flashes this look as well, which has always bothered me and continues to make me doubt his veracity.
Lizzie doesn't have this look in photos. It would be very interesting to have a "moving picture" a la Nance O'Neill as, I believe, it would be more revealing. (Please, no computer videos of Lizzie up the stairs with the ax.)
There was a very dark and interesting psychological drama called HOUSE OF GAMES (1987) with Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna which shows up on cable quite often. It is about a gambler teaching a psychiatrist about the 'tells' a gambler uses to read people.
I believe these micro-expressions occur so rapidly that the average person misses them or might claim just to get a bad feeling about someone, not realizing they have observed a facial expression bordering on subliminal.
Unfortunately, I have a history with domestic violence in my life. I had observed a unique look in the eyes that my ex-significant other would get prior to lying or exploding into violence. The best I can describe it is part defiance, part soullessness.
However, the first time I say O.J. testify, I immediately recognized the look. Scott Peterson did, too. Interestingly, Robert Blake did not. Sadly, Jon Benet Ramsay's father sometimes flashes this look as well, which has always bothered me and continues to make me doubt his veracity.
Lizzie doesn't have this look in photos. It would be very interesting to have a "moving picture" a la Nance O'Neill as, I believe, it would be more revealing. (Please, no computer videos of Lizzie up the stairs with the ax.)
There was a very dark and interesting psychological drama called HOUSE OF GAMES (1987) with Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna which shows up on cable quite often. It is about a gambler teaching a psychiatrist about the 'tells' a gambler uses to read people.
I believe these micro-expressions occur so rapidly that the average person misses them or might claim just to get a bad feeling about someone, not realizing they have observed a facial expression bordering on subliminal.