Faking It: Tears of a Crime

As another reviewer pointed out, this is nothing more than self-described "experts" pointing at behavioral characteristics and claiming that they are somehow indicative of lying when the subject has already been exposed as a liar. In one case in the first series one of the "experts" actually engaged in the very behavior they claimed indicated lying *while they were saying the subject was a liar*!

It's well known to any investigator worth his/her salt that people behave differently and react to stress differently. Italians are well known for talking with their hands-- does that mean all of them are lying all the time? Of course not!

This isn't science by any stretch of the imagination-- it's the opinion of snake oil salesmen who would be working carnival sideshows if they hadn't scammed their way into a television show. Just as with bite mark analysis & hair analysis, these interpretations of behavior are highly subjective and are certainly not scientific.

Two points because some of the stories are interesting to those of us who haven't heard them before but minus 10 points to the so-called experts for their laughable, transparently bad "analysis".

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 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!