Faking It: Tears of a Crime

The presenters talk about body language, speech etc, however, a lot of it seems a strong push. One, they're working with already known facts i.e this person is the killer - oh we know that because certain aspects of their body language betrayed them. No.. we already know they're the killer - a simple shrug didn't portray anything otherwise you'd be used beforehand.

Hard watch for sure. They also seem to have an agenda beforehand. Just watched the Shemima Begum episode - they clearly have their own opinion which they are pushing in this show, instead of dealing with hard facts as it should be.

I enjoyed & watched Seasons 1, 2 & part of 3 of the 2017 Faking It: Tears of a Crime TV Series. The format is the same throughout so I did get a bit bored & didn't complete S3. I also watched Michael Jackson: A Faking It Special TV Episode from the newer 2021 TV Series.

The Michael Jackson Faking It Special is an inconclusive investigative documentary which is loaded with 'bias' against the Michael Jackson, in favour of a form of 'justice' being served. There is a panel of 3 'experts': (1) Dr Cliff Lansley - The Watcher - Body Language Analyst; (2) Professor Dawn Archer - Professor of Linguistics; (3) Kerry Daynes - Forensic Psychologist & Consultant Profiler.

I think MJ was very much a 'misunderstood' person. MJ was to the music industry what the fictional character Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory is/was to science. MJ was a 'nerd' or a 'geek' as the Americans say. MJ's 'superhero' was Peter Pan & he likened himself to his superhero Peter Pan, so what? In another dimension we just woulda accepted that & called him a 'spastic', or a weirdo or awkward - not rebellious awkward but 'odd' awkward. The problem with being 'misunderstood', is that the more you try to explain, justify & rationalise & reason with 'normal people', is the more 'hot water' you throw on yourself, or the bigger the grave you dig for yourself. Sadly & in the end, MJ chose the latter.

Michael Jackson said it himself right at the beginning of the show, "I AM Totally Innocent Of Any Wrong Doing". The show then goes out to discredit the loyalty of the fans & prove MJ's hypothesis - if you like - as 'wrong', or being 'wrong' or in the 'wrong', - ie: how could a 'Thirty Something' year old grown up man be that stupid that he did not realise that 'his' 'brand' of 'innocence' is tottally unacceptable in 'the real world'? So rather than prove MJ is innocent or guilty of the charges he stands accused of, the experts resort to ridiculing MJ's thought process, intelligence & intellect. This is done by a series of varied film footage, and interviews with Michael & other family members, over the course of his life.

MJ was an exceptional artist which straight away puts us on notice that he is Less' skilled at 'Faking It' & even lesser skilled at facing reality. What I mean is that most of us are very good at putting on a bravado that gets us through the day or gets us through life. We 'mask' our 'childhood trauma' with various addictions, obsessiveness, prayers & the belief in demons, ghosts, ghouls & god.

...And what of the parents of these boys who grew up & jumped on the band wagon of the media circus accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation & child sexual abuse? Where were the parents of these children that MJ is accused of having carnal relationships with? Yep! They were right there with them - what's the word - 'grooming' - they were 'grooming' their children to 'cash-in' on the act, as their 'voice', their truth is not represented in this Mockumentary.

By the same token, I do so hate these celebs & superstars who cry about their harsh upbringing & the current influences & involvement their parents had or still have in their lives. Boo-Hoo-Hoo! The Jacksons - including Michael are all part of that, so I Am really not sympathetic to their 'hard luck' stories, because they've enjoyed every moment of the fame, fortune & notoriety that the limelight has brought them. It's only when their privileged lifestyle is at stake does the media circus become problematic to them.

I cant believe people take this seriously. Let them do it before any of the studies are found guilty. Laughable on all levels, experts of picking the guilty from the guilty.

I've seen most of these and find Kerry Daynes is the only one worth listening to. She has the ability to get to the root of the person and the crime and what she says makes a lot of sense.

The other two, Dawn Archer and Cliff Lansley basically say exactly the same things on every episode. I've lost count how many times Cliff Lansley has explained the slight movement of a shoulder, expanded to the full shoulder shrug, means I have no confidence in what I'm saying. Dawn Archer seems stuck on timing answer delays then just repeats what is said.

In the Michael Jackson episode Cliff Lansley chooses to ignore all his previous expert observations in other episodes about people who shake their head in a negative motion while saying something positive. Michael Jackson did this several times yet Cliff Lansley thought he was telling the truth. Cliff Lansley is obviously a Michael Jackson fan and not being impartial at all as an expert should be.

I think it's time for a couple of new experts. Certainly keep Kerry Daynes as without her the progamme has nothing but find some new ideas for the others.

The series is garbage. A bunch of so - called 'experts '. expertly 'analyse' the behaviour and mannerisms of people who they KNOW are guilty of the crimes of which they are accused We can all play that game! " scratches nose" - guilty ! "Waves hands" - guilty.! Well yes - because you KNOW the outcome. Bunkum and pseudo- science to titillate the (apparently) murder - obsessed viewing public. Pathetic!