Faking It: Tears of a Crime

To the nay sayers - you obviously don't understand the law. In the case of Prince Andrew, they cannot say that they know 100% he is guilty. They may know it and so may the Police. But until he is charged and then convicted (IN A COURT OF LAW) of course they have to be careful. I found it an interesting series. Should do one on Mark Lundy from NZ. Good case of overacting.

Brilliant Crime Documentary Explaining the bare Bones of each crime.

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.

It's very easy to pick out these tell tale signs in the already convicted..but none of this would be useful without all the other evidence. This programme couldn't be made about suspects because they'd be wrong more times than right...