Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Body Language at the trial...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Body Language at the trial...

    I thought this article was pretty interesting:

    Body language analyst breaks down Clemens, McNamee performances

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The first verbal knife had yet to be thrown. Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee had yet to say a single word. And yet renowned body language expert Janine Driver already had jumped off her couch, paused the TiVo and pointed to her television with the excitement of someone who had just found a lost wedding ring.


    "See that!?! See that!?!" Driver said. "Did you see the way Roger pulled his thumb in? That's a hot spot. That's a hot spot. That's a potential sign of deception!"


    Driver has spent the past 13 years studying just that -- the subtleties and signals of body language. She has worked for the federal government, law enforcement agencies and Fortune 500 companies. She has trained more than 20,000 police officers on interrogation techniques, and has helped hundreds of men and women improve their personal lives through body language analysis. She is currently on a government assignment that she is not allowed to discuss publicly, but it has nothing to do with the investigation into performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.


    On Wednesday, 10 miles from Capitol Hill, the woman known as the "Lyin' Tamer" applied her expertise to the congressional hearings on the Mitchell report, inviting ESPN.com into her home where she shared her impressions of the on-camera behaviors of Clemens and McNamee.


    Her job, to put it simply, is to overanalyze. To critique every little thing -- from a scratch of the nose to a twitch of the eye -- to search for signs of deception. There are those who might think it is overboard, and perhaps it is. But she acknowledges there is no single behavior that indicates someone is definitely lying. Instead, there are "hot spots," as she calls them, which indicate potential deception. The more hot spots, the more likely there is deception. And right from the beginning of Wednesday's hearing, when Clemens and McNamee raised their right hands to be sworn in, Driver started noticing hot spots with Clemens.


    Driver first noticed the pitcher pull his right thumb into his hand while he was being sworn. She said that noted jury consultant Jo Ellen Demetrius, who helped pick the jury for the original O.J. Simpson trial, has a theory that whenever somebody sticks their thumb in while being sworn in, he or she will be a difficult witness.


    "If you're going to tell the truth your thumb and your hand are open and relaxed," Driver said. "When you're controlling what you're going to say, your thumb might be tense. And Roger's thumb is tense."


    She went back and played the swearing in again and found more hot spots with Clemens. He briefly stuck out his tongue, licked his lips. And then adjusted the way he was standing.


    What did it all mean?


    "These are signs that are indicative of someone who is possibly going to withhold the truth," Driver said. "Does it mean he is lying? No. You have to look for these clusters of hot spots. But right off the bat, we have three of them."

    Driver then listened to Clemens' opening statement and was critical of the phrase, "I've been accused of something I'm not guilty of."


    Driver again excitedly paused the TiVo, bragging that she couldn't wait to show this clip to a class she teaches at Johns Hopkins University. Driver said people often say passive things like, "I'm not guilty of" when they're lying.


    "Look, if I asked you if you killed your son you wouldn't say, 'I'm not guilty of that,'" Driver said. "You would say, 'Absolutely not.' It's just a passive way of dancing around the issue. It's just another hot spot to pay attention to."


    At another point during Clemens' opening statement, the pitcher stuttered when he said, "I'm not saying the entire report is wrong, I'm saying Brian Mc . . . Brian McNamee's statements are wrong."


    The stutter stood out to Driver.


    "Look, he can't even say it without a stutter," she added. "And that's his first stutter in his entire statement. If this were a case where he were lying, his stress would increase and a stutter would happen. Hot spot."


    When McNamee read his opening statement, Driver had nothing critical to say. She found no hot spots. No clusters. McNamee's hands were on the table, a position she said conveys truth and confidence. And he didn't stutter in any way.

    "He comes across as genuine," Driver said. "There's nothing there. It's exactly what you're looking for. There's no signs of deception. These opening statements are a perfect example of what to do and what not to do."


    It's a theme that would continue throughout much of the hearing, with Driver picking up several hot spots on Clemens, but few on McNamee. Even when McNamee, the former trainer, was being grilled by several politicians, including Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Driver said McNamee came across as believable.


    Sure, his hands were shaking at times and his body language said he was nervous. He even crossed his arms and rubbed his wrists, a move Driver said Martha Stewart did frequently during her trial. But Driver found him believable, referring to his slouched shoulders and crossed arms as "defeated."


    "He looks like he's out of the game, like he doesn't want to fight," Driver said. "And when bad guys are about to confess, that's what they do. Their posture is less straight, they stare off. He's in an emotional place. He's a wet rag. And he gives me the indication that he's throwing up his arms and telling us everything he knows."


    Even during the heated discussion over the party at Jose Canseco's Florida home, a party that Clemens and several others contended he did not attend but McNamee claimed he did, Driver said she believed McNamee was likely telling the truth. Perhaps, she said, they both were.


    "I believe that Brian truly believes that Roger was there," Driver said. "There's no notable change in his behavior to signal otherwise. And the truth, remember, is nothing more than our perception of the truth. It's what we believe of it. Maybe Brian is remembering another day that Roger was there. Maybe he saw the nanny or Roger's wife. Who knows.


    "[McNamee has] got serious credibility issues. There's no question about that. But body-language-wise, he comes across as sincere. There's no reason to think he's lying."


    The only issue Driver had was when Burton asked McNamee whether he had kept syringes or any other evidence from clients besides Clemens and Chuck Knoblauch. McNamee's answer: "Possibly one other." That troubled Driver.


    "There's more to that story," she said. "If you've saved evidence that long, you know what you have. It's one other. Not possibly one other."


    Driver said she found Clemens less than convincing throughout. She noted several things that troubled her:


    • On several occasions, Clemens referred to McNamee as "this man." Said Driver: "That's distancing language. Bill Clinton did the exact same thing when he said he did not have sexual relations with 'that woman.' It's a way to distance yourself from the truth."


    • When asked by the committee whether Clemens had received an invitation to meet with former Sen. George Mitchell to discuss his commission's findings, Driver counted Clemens pausing 23 times before answering no. "That's a serious potential hot spot."


    • When Clemens discussed pitching for Team USA and how proud he was to have those three letters on his chest, Driver noticed that Clemens' right nostril went up. That, she said, typically reveals disgust. "That's a micro-expression that shouldn't be there when he's talking about his pride in playing for his country. That's huge." During the Simpson trial, Driver said, Cato Kaelin made the same expression when lying to the prosecution about his plans to write a book on the ordeal. "It's almost a snarl. Like a wild dog. And you have to wonder why Roger did that there. Subconsciously he is leaking disgust."


    • When Rep. Darrell S. Issa, R-Calif., announced that he was pleased this would be the last hearing on steroids in baseball, Driver said Clemens raised his lip. "That's contempt," she said. "It means moral superiority, essentially, 'I win.' That just shows that he is pleased that this will be the last hearing on this topic."

    But perhaps the most telling moment to Driver was the very end of the hearing, when committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., concluded by reiterating the deposition and affidavit given by Andy Pettitte, only to have Clemens interrupt Waxman and insist, "That doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken."


    Waxman smacked his gavel on the desk in front of him and sternly told Clemens, "It is not your time to argue with me."


    Driver said Clemens' red-faced look was as telling as the pitcher's hot-spot-filled swearing in. She stressed several times that those who tell the truth convey their message rather than convince you of it. In this case, Clemens was convincing.


    "If he was telling the truth, he wouldn't have to speak at the end," she said. "But when someone is drowning, they want to grasp for one more bit of air. An innocent person, they look relieved after they tell the truth, like we see with Brian McNamee. But for Roger to be grasping for air in a sense of panic speaks volumes."


    In the end, what does it all mean? Perhaps a lot. Perhaps very little. Unlike some of her colleagues, Driver said she refuses to "absolutely" accuse someone of lying since there is no certain body movement to reveal that. But just like the game of poker, there are "tells." And if one of her law enforcement colleagues had shown her a tape of the hearing and asked her to grade the two witnesses on their potential hot spots, Driver said she would have given McNamee a "1" and Clemens an "8" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the fewest hot spots.


    "There are people who will say Roger is fighting for his life so, of course, it makes sense for those hot spots to be there," Driver said. "But you know what? When you're taking an oath there shouldn't be anxiety. And if you told the truth, there shouldn't be that anxiety and rage at the end.


    "Truthful people feel a relief after a hearing like this. The truth sets them free. Just look at Brian. His body language says, 'Take it. I'm done. I've told you what I know. I told the truth.' We don't see Roger Clemens doing that. And that's what makes you have to wonder."


    Wayne Drehs is a senior writer for ESPN.com. He can be reached at [email protected].

    More Reviews
    A little more than a month after she told New York newspapers that Roger Clemens gave a masterful performance in his "60 Minutes" interview, Barbara Laskin, president of Laskin Media, an award-winning New York-based communication training company, was surprised by his inconsistent performance Wednesday.

    While Laskin thought the former Yankees pitcher's opening statement was "extremely strong," she said he later "crumbled" when discussing his wife Debbie's use of human growth hormone and Andy Pettitte's deposition.

    "His demeanor changed," Laskin said of Clemens. "He looked weaker and smaller. There was a disconnect there and he looked in trouble. But does that mean Roger's not telling the truth? It may not be. Maybe it's because Brian McNamee has nothing else to lose while Roger has everything to lose."

    Greg Hartley, a former Army interrogator and author of, "How to Spot a Liar," concurred that Clemens struggled.

    "When Rep. Cummings talked to him, he licked his lips 22 times," Hartley said. "That's a huge indicator that his stress levels are high. That's holding back emotion, that's, "How dare you ask me that.'"

    Hartley added that McNamee came across as more sincere.

    "When I watched them," he said, "McNamee came across as a little sleezy, but so what? He's injecting people with steroids. Of course he's going to be a bit sleezy."

    Laskin agreed that McNamee gave a better performance, but that it doesn't necessarily mean she believes him more.

    "There were times where Roger was uncomfortable and lost that Roger Clemens roll of credibility. But some of his emotional outbursts were very powerful. I think he may have won some converts. But I'm not so sure there isn't a little bit of gray with both of them.

    "This is not the lottery. There's no winning ticket. They're both losers in some way."

    -- Wayne Drehs
    ?

  • #2
    Glad you found that, I was going to say something like that but a professional's analysis is better...

    I had him as looking at the Congressmen consistently while McNamee was reading his statement, shifting in his chair, and turning red at parts that he knew he was going to have trouble defending against.
    Last edited by efin98; 02-14-2008, 12:38 AM.
    Best posts ever:
    Originally posted by nymdan
    Too... much... math... head... hurts...
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond
    I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

    Comment


    • #3
      "If you're going to tell the truth your thumb and your hand are open and relaxed," Driver said. "When you're controlling what you're going to say, your thumb might be tense. And Roger's thumb is tense."


      LOL.....the case of the tense thumb...........and she is getting paid for this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
        LOL.....the case of the tense thumb...........and she is getting paid for this.
        Little things like that add up.
        Best posts ever:
        Originally posted by nymdan
        Too... much... math... head... hurts...
        Originally posted by RuthMayBond
        I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

        Comment


        • #5
          Do facial expressions count for anything?



          I entitle this one, "If looks could kill".
          Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting. 2007-11 CBA
          Rest very peacefully, John “Buck” O'Neil (1911-2006) & Philip Francis “Scooter” Rizzuto (1917-2007)
          THE BROOKLYN DODGERS - 1890 thru 1957
          Montreal Expos 1969 - 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mattingly View Post
            Do facial expressions count for anything?



            I entitle this one, "If looks could kill".
            It's funny that you mention facial expressions because, YES, they do count. When I was watching the trial's closing statements I couldn't help but laugh at Clemens facial expression and slight head movement when the chairman, Waxman, cut him off and tell him that "NOW IS NOT YOUR TIME TO ARGUE WITH ME". Clemens looked like he wanted to say something like "No one talks to me like that you ****** ******. I'm gonna jump over this table and rip your head off." If you've got a sense of humor check it out if you can. I think there's a link to the closing statements on ESPN. For a brief moment I couldn't help but admire and think that we just saw a glimpse of Clemens competitive nature that made him so successful on the mound, and now we see the same look, like he's defying a hitter in the batter's box, in the courtroom.
            ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by efin98 View Post
              Little things like that add up.
              Absolutely. I watched the entire trial and DVR'd it. I would agree with this professional's assessment that there are subtle clues in one's body language that indicate who's telling or not telling the truth. It doesn't surprise me that she's a professional getting paid to do this and that she teaches it at a major university. There is science to it. Like she said, it's NOT just one movement as cited by Old Sweater, it's a cluster of movements that add up and tilt the balance to one side.

              Is it solid enough to prove in a court of law that Clemens is lying? No, but at this point I don't think anyone has proof that would hold up in court to say that he's guilty. But that doesn't mean he's NOT guilty. It just means there's not enough evidence. Since this entire process started I've tried to follow it pretty closely. I'm not claiming to be an expert but I feel that in my heart that I've seen, read and heard enough to say that Clemens is guilty, just like I did with O.J., Pete Rose & Barry Bonds. These guys were/are all guilty of lying about what they're accussed; murder, gambling on baseball, knowingly using PEDs respectively.

              As far as I'm concerned, Clemens is guilty but probably not beyond a courtroom's definition of "resonable doubt". If things stay as they are or on their current path, what gets proven or not proven in court is irrelevant to me now. If no charges are filed vs. Clemens or if he gets off scott-free in court, I doubt if it would change my mind. Life isn't fair or always just, but, life does go on. So be it.

              You'all can say "shame on me because" in America, we're all "innocent" until PROVEN guilty but I would venture a guess that more people get away with crimes than get caught because of evidence and I think Clemens is or will be one of those people. And according to a courtroom, rightly so. But to me, he'll always be far from my definition of innocent or be able to pass my test for resonable doubt in this case.
              ?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
                LOL.....the case of the tense thumb...........and she is getting paid for this.
                Sit down at a poker table with Phil Ivey and let me know how it goes...
                THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
                  LOL.....the case of the tense thumb...........and she is getting paid for this.
                  Yeah, it's amazing such people are so roundly employed and sought after. I guess all should just refer to a bunch of guys on a chat forum instead.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bkmckenna View Post
                    Yeah, it's amazing such people are so roundly employed and sought after. I guess all should just refer to a bunch of guys on a chat forum instead.
                    exactly. althogh in clemens case it didn't take an expert. some peoples body language and demeanor are so bloody obvious that just about anybody can tell their lying (or in clemens case perjuring).

                    i'm sure this hearing will be shown in body language 101 classes for years to come.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bkmckenna View Post
                      I guess all should just refer to a bunch of guys on a chat forum instead.
                      I've only been here a few days, but this is my favorite post.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As I understand the testimony so far, only two persons were “eyewitness” to the alleged injection of Clemens with steroids or HGH: Clemens himself and Brian McNamee. All other “witness reports” are based on hearsay.

                        So far as I know, Clemens has never before been accused or suspected of “lying under oath”. McNamee has freely lied under oath, even in the current congressional hearings, and he seems to have no hesitation to lie whenever it suits his purpose. From this history I tend to not believe much of what McNamee says, even if he sometimes tells the truth. But is Clemens also a liar? Or could he be the innocent victim of a terrible misunderstanding?

                        I have tried to find some reason to believe that both Clemens and Pettitte honestly believe that they are telling the truth. The best answer I can find is that Clemens was talking about his wife taking HGH (for that magazine photo-shoot) but that Andy came in the “middle of the story”. Using Clemens words, that Andy may have “mis-remembered” (or, in my words, “misunderstood”) what was being said because he missed the beginning. Roger was talking about his wife but Andy thought Roger was talking about himself. This is very much like the storyline of an “I Love Lucy” episode, where someone hears only part of the story and therefore comes to believe something which is clearly untrue. Maybe the same thing happens in real life!

                        I may be naïve in this matter. I don’t especially like Clemens but I admire the work he has done as a pitcher. Seeing Brian McNamee giving his testimony doesn’t persuade me much – why should I believe a man who admits he knowingly broke the law in the past and then lied about it, even under oath?

                        I do believe Andy Pettitte – but he was not an eyewitnesses. He has testified only to what he remembers being told in the past. He believe he is telling the truth, but he may not have heard the whole story.

                        I must admit that the outstanding pitching seasons by Clemens late in his career tend to suggest use of illegal drugs – or some other possibly illegal way of gaining a special advantage. That is the circumstantial kind of evidence that first led me to suspect Barry Bonds – that a man who never hit 50 homeruns in a season suddenly hits 73 late in his career. But I want to believe Roger’s story and I am looking for an explanation to support it.
                        Last edited by Appling; 02-14-2008, 11:03 AM.
                        Luke

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Appling View Post
                          But I want to believe Roger’s story and I am looking for an explanation to support it.
                          Who needs Occam's Razor when you have cognitive dissonance, eh?...
                          THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                          In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Nice Theory But Illogical

                            [QUOTE=Appling;1113559]

                            I have tried to find some reason to believe that both Clemens and Pettitte honestly believe that they are telling the truth. The best answer I can find is that Clemens was talking about his wife taking HGH (for that magazine photo-shoot) but that Andy came in the “middle of the story”. Using Clemens words, that Andy may have “mis-remembered” (or, in my words, “misunderstood”) what was being said because he missed the beginning. Roger was talking about his wife but Andy thought Roger was talking about himself.

                            The one problem with that scenario is that it is impossible as to the known facts as pointed out by one of the congressman at the hearing and shoots this type theory down in flames.

                            Pettitte swore in his deposition that Clemens told him about his own personal HGH use in 1999 or 2000. Clemens wife's photo shoot, and apparent HGH use, wasn't until 2003. As one of the Congressmen pointed out, how could Clemens be forseeing the future of 2003 in 1999 or 2000? Also, as a congressman pointed out, Clemens has also claimed that his wife's HGH use was done without his personal knowledge at the time it happened so how could he possibly have discussed his wife's HGH use with Pettitte either 3-4 years before it even happened or even discuss something with Pettitte that he claims that he even didn't know had happened? It is just one of the many ways that Clemens tripped himself up yesterday.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Appling View Post
                              As I understand the testimony so far, only two persons were “eyewitness” to the alleged injection of Clemens with steroids or HGH: Clemens himself and Brian McNamee. All other “witness reports” are based on hearsay.

                              So far as I know, Clemens has never before been accused or suspected of “lying under oath”. McNamee has freely lied under oath, even in the current congressional hearings, and he seems to have no hesitation to lie whenever it suits his purpose. From this history I tend to not believe much of what McNamee says, even if he sometimes tells the truth. But is Clemens also a liar? Or could he be the innocent victim of a terrible misunderstanding?

                              I have tried to find some reason to believe that both Clemens and Pettitte honestly believe that they are telling the truth. The best answer I can find is that Clemens was talking about his wife taking HGH (for that magazine photo-shoot) but that Andy came in the “middle of the story”. Using Clemens words, that Andy may have “mis-remembered” (or, in my words, “misunderstood”) what was being said because he missed the beginning. Roger was talking about his wife but Andy thought Roger was talking about himself. This is very much like the storyline of an “I Love Lucy” episode, where someone hears only part of the story and therefore comes to believe something which is clearly untrue. Maybe the same thing happens in real life!

                              I may be naïve in this matter. I don’t especially like Clemens but I admire the work he has done as a pitcher. Seeing Brian McNamee giving his testimony doesn’t persuade me much – why should I believe a man who admits he knowingly broke the law in the past and then lied about it, even under oath?

                              I do believe Andy Pettitte – but he was not an eyewitnesses. He has testified only to what he remembers being told in the past. He believe he is telling the truth, but he may not have heard the whole story.

                              I must admit that the outstanding pitching seasons by Clemens late in his career tend to suggest use of illegal drugs – or some other possibly illegal way of gaining a special advantage. That is the circumstantial kind of evidence that first led me to suspect Barry Bonds – that a man who never hit 50 homeruns in a season suddenly hits 73 late in his career. But I want to believe Roger’s story and I am looking for an explanation to support it.
                              Hope you don't pull a muscle twisting and turning to make this sound good for Roger.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X