Faking It: Tears of a Crime

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.

Brilliant Crime Documentary Explaining the bare Bones of each crime.

I think we all have the experience to see what someone's body movements is saying.

I loved body language expert Judi Jame when does used to cone on the big brother show and do live descriptions of the housemates movements, 😂 this is the sane only about people who have been egotistical in trying to get away with murder.

The experts on the show faking it are just explaining what they were doing to try act normal when they've been going about their lives after murdering someone.

They are telling us what they did in the interview room. It's good to see the way that people get questioned by police, and that it's no wonder how a lot get away with serious crimes.

There should be a body language expert there for all interview rooms because innocent people would get out quicker and not be held just because the police think they're guilty when the criminals get out on bail and end up killing people sometimes the see day the police release them now that's where they've made many mistakes.

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.

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.