btbnnyr wrote:
I always hate it when experts appear on TV to analyze the non-verbal cues of alleged criminals. I always think to myself, "Oh Crap, if they were analyzing me, then I'd be in deep doodoo!"
It seems that if an accused person sits still, pays attention, and acts respectful to the court, then he or she is guilty because he or she is obviously just trying to make a good impression.
It seems that if an accused person fidgets, seems distracted, and acts disrespectful to the court, then he or she is guilty because he or she obviously has no respect for good order and discipline.
It seems that if an accused person is pale, seems nervous, and acts intimidated by the court, then he or she is guilty because he or she is obviously aware of the sentence that he or she deserves.
It seems that if an accused person is relaxed, seems confident, and cooperates fully with the court, then he or she is guilty because he or she obviously thinks that everyone is fooled by the case the defense is presenting.
No matter what, it seems that once an accused person is targeted by the media, then he or she is "obviously" guilty for some reason other than actually having committed the crime.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.