Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Body Language Analysis Request

Here is a mother who's child is missing.  Without any language, what do you make of her body language?

Réaction de la maman de Fiona, Cécile Bourgeon by France3Auvergne


Anonymous said...

I didn't watch the whole thing, just the first minute, but right off the bat I noticed that it looked like she was trying to make herself cry. Also, there was very little eye contact, which would be expected if domeone wasn't telling the truth. Also, she kept shaking her head from side to side. Nervousness? A way to make it look like she's pleading "no, no, no" without really having to say anything?

Anonymous said...

she's not LOOKING

there's no ACTION in her, only resignation. she knows whatever happened cannot be undone.

Anonymous said...

she does not attempt to direct our attention outwards to wherever the child may be ----- only inwards to herself.

Anonymous said...

she shakes her head throughout the entire interview as though she is denying what she is saying.

Anonymous said...

The scoop.

Anonymous said...

she also covers her mouth A LOT.

MoJo said...

I saw limited eye contact and nearly continuous head movement from side to side.

I saw little urgency or passion in her movements/demeanor. She appeared to be reacting to(and denying/responding in the negative) to comments/questions of others rather than initiating an exchange/making a statement.

Anonymous said...

The constant shaking of her head no, no, no is very telling. She is negating every word she speaks.

And after reading the story, people who react to finding their child dead or dying by hiding the body have guilty knowledge period. That's pretty clear cut. What would you do if you found your child dead or dying?

Tania Cadogan said...

It's like watching a bobblehead on a bumpy road

Anonymous said...

Only thing to add is the confident sniff. By the middle she seems to think she's got them believing. Bran

ME said...

Like "philpott"a uk father who burnt his 6 children to death,she wipes away imaginary tears.

Anonymous said...

She looks down most of the time she is speaking. At the start it seemed to me she was repressing a smirk and then shifted to show sadness. I later see oblique eyebrows and genuine sadness. Sadness could be because she knows what really happened and it is not good.

The initial smirk was part of perhaps duper's delight, she is convincing them or so she thinks. Later she works on the sniffling and crying to sound convincing. I understand French (not perfectly, but fairly well) she is saying she believes in justice. Saying what she believes she should say to sound convincing. I don't believe her.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:58

Thanks for the link. I was accurate in my assessment.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Just a few points to add.

The lack of eye contact is not synonymous with lying. We have to be careful when tracking eye contact with liars. In some cultures direct eye contact is a no no (Japan) its a sign of disrespect.

The hypothesis is that liars seek more eye contact because they want to convince the interviewer that they are telling the truth and want to check whether the interviewer appears to believe them.

It is interesting to note the way she switches her (sadness) on and of very quickly. Sadness builds up and then fades slowly she does not show this.

A few times during the the vt she does whats known as head tilts.When people do this it tells us they don't fear approach and demonstrates openness. It reveals the vulnerable part of our neck and shows trust. A lot of people do this when flirting. Following on on this note. @ 3:11 she curls her hair around her left ear. Now she does not need to do this as it is not in her eyes. Caveat (she may do this all the time) Although this movement, is a combination of nerves and flirtation, it helps call attention to and frame the face and neck. Some say that we are more attracted to the left side of people faces ?.

@ 3:50 she she pretends to wipe away tears. When she does this she keeps her hand on her cheek for 4/5 seconds. This could be a self comforting gesture, it is also a flirting signal. Not all women do this. It is suggested when this action is performed it reveals again a vulnerable part of the body (The wrist). It is also suggested this is why some women apply perfume to their wrist. When flirting the hand comes up to face,almost like a caressing movement the wrist is revealed thus releasing the smell of perfume to who ever their talking to. This is almost always done subconciously.

The head bobbling may be a characteristic of the french ?

We must then ask why if she is going through such a traumatic time she feels the need to display these actions. For me there are enough pointers in this clip to probe deeper into her story.

Is she enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame ?.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:42 p.m., lack of eye contact is not necessarily an indication of lying. Direct, fixed and steady eye contact can, in fact, be an indication of blatant lying.

I sat through four days of testimony in a civil hearing where the atty defendant involved gave direct (deceitful) testimony, without ever wavering with his fixed and penetrating stare directly into the eyes of the witness who gave testimony against him; claiming that his mother had witnessed the signatures of some fraudulent documents in her home that she never saw or witnessed.

The malfeasance had occurred in her home, yes she was there, but she had left the room and gone into the kitchen to prepare dinner at the time the documents were executed and never saw or signed any of the documents as a witness as they were being executed.

This lawyer was sitting right next to me at his mothers' dining room table and knew that I knew his mother never saw or witnessed any of the documents as they were being executed.

For the better part of four days this lawyer fixed his gaze on me, lied and kept lying, knowing that I knew he was lying in my face. When he wasn't staring at me with eyes wide open with his steady (defiant) stare; with shoulders back and head held high, he was affirmatively looking into the eyes of the plaintiffs' atty, the judge, or members of the jury as he continued to lie. (Conveniently, his mother was never called as a witness, but that's not the point).

Looking into ones eyes as someone desperately and smoothly lies is no indication of their innocence or that they are telling the truth.

shmi said...

The woman talking is constantly shaking her head, either in disbelief that this has happened, or that she does not believe the things she is saying.

If this is grief, it must be very fresh. Her body language shows me she holds out no hope (if, in fact a child is missing). She does not seem urgent. Although I don't speak her language, it would be hard for me to say her child is missing, more like she knows the child is gone for good. I have no idea what she is saying!

Anonymous said...

Her body language shows she has no hope. She does not look like she is active and fighting, she looks like she gave up already. She looks down constantly, looks like she feels ashamed or she is acting and trying hard to look sad.

sidewalk super said...

wow, she continually shakes her head "no", could all of the reporters questions have that answer?

Anxiety in eyebrows, no tears, mouth actually smiles at corners, woman pretty much won't make eye contact... I think she's shamming.

(7:45)..that man's stare was for intimidation!

Anonymous said...

The lawyers' direct wide-eyed stare at me and others was not for intimidation, there was no point in him intimidating me, he had already done that in depositions that never saw the light of day during the trial;

it was for convincing the judge and jury that he was telling the truth by never wavering in his lies, neither looking away or casting a downward look, even when he was staring at me and knew that I knew he was lying.

Lawyers already know to look straight into the eyes of those they are lying too, that it makes the gullible believe them. It's their ace card.

Unknown said...

If I was watching this without knowing any back story I would not think this is a mother talking about a missing child. I would expect strong indicators of sadness and fear on her face, in particular around her eyes and on her brow. Her facial expressions are not consistent with what I would expect.

John Mc Gowan said...

Listen Don't let your eyes deceive you!

posted by Wesley Clark, Group Administrator

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update Hannah Anderson.

New Book Critical of Hannah Anderson's Story
Hoffman identifies inconsistencies in Hannah Anderson's very public discussions of how the crimes occurred.


The book identifies a photo of a girl in zip ties posted on Hannah's Pinterest page several weeks before the kidnapping as if to suggest the teen was in on the crime spree.
San Diego County sheriff’s investigators have maintained that Hannah was a victim.
The deaths of Christina and Ethan Anderson were ruled a homicide by sheriff’s deputies.
Hoffman claims her independent study of the autopsies of Hannah's family members suggests that Christina was dead much earlier than noon on August 3.

Sarah said...

-Shaking head 'no' a lot which may be contradicting positive or affirmative statements, or may be an indication that she does not agree with what she is saying
-She appears to go from upset to calm without much transition between the two
-Not much eye contact
-Reminds me of a teenage girl being scolded or confronted

Randie said...

Yes, she shakes her head throughout the entire interview as though she is denying what she is saying.

Watch CLOSELY the first 5 seconds... Watch her eyes. It is the "look" I have given when I have bought a dress that my husband didn't approve of the price, (so I have given a lower price---lied).

Randie said...

No it is about 11 to 12 seconds into it. Watch closely.

Randie said...

"Since reporting her five-year-old daughter Fiona missing in May, Cécile Bourgeon has had the sympathy and support of the entire French nation. This week, though, she made an unthinkable confession and quickly became a figure of hatred in France."

Randie said...


"The book identifies a photo of a girl in zip ties posted on Hannah's Pinterest page several weeks before the kidnapping as if to suggest the teen was in on the crime spree."


Not good!!!!!

Anonymous said...

thanks John, you just made it click in my mind, Hannah went to her cheer camp, while her mom and brother were dead at jim's house.

im having trouble squaring the timeline. did ethan go to his football? because it let out at 3pm, hannah cheer let out at 4pm, that was the reason Jim picked hannah up. but if Tina was dead before then, who took hannah to cheer camp? and does that mean hannah knew her mom's predicament before she went to camp like nothing happened? then returned to Jim's after cheer camp by proof of the cell phones being there.
alibi building?

Anonymous said...

the zip tie thing was a shared thing on how "a girl can free herself from zip ties" a few weeks before Tina and Ethan were killed.
"bye hollywood, hello river" was 4 weeks before they were killed.
the camping gear was purchased 2? weeks before also.
this "trip" was planned, but remember her interview in NY, Jim sat Hannah down on the couch and told her of his plans, played a little russian roulette, ...? seems to me hannah knew what the plan was before the day Tina and Ethan were killed.

MoJo said...

Lots of interesting comments!

I agree that although lack of eye contact is often assumed to be a sign/signal of lying or deception, liars may make good (or too good) eye contact and some truth-tellers may exhibit poor eye contact.

I'm not sure if it's just me or is common in others, but I am nearly incapable of making eye contact with people who I KNOW are lying/have lied to me. Maybe it's because I don't want them to read the emotions in my eyes? Maybe it's an act of disrespect to them?

Red Ryder said...

Watching her constant head shaking, looking down/away, mOuth covering- I was beginning to be suspicious. I tried to not listen to the words but she makes a comment early on about events and says "and that's all I know about that." (shades of Haleigh C, Haley, and how many others? So sad.)

C5H11ONO said...

Anonymous 2:15p said...
this "trip" was planned, but remember her interview in NY, Jim sat Hannah down on the couch and told her of his plans, played a little russian roulette, ...? seems to me hannah knew what the plan was before the day Tina and Ethan were killed.

Please read Hanna’s statement again. She never said he told her of his plans. Rather “the” plan.,0,7528618.story#axzz2jPqP0Fps

"When we got into the house, after he told me the plan, he made me play Russian roulette with him sitting on the couch," she said.

I believe your suspicions are on the mark.

Anonymous said...

"When we got into the house, after he told me the plan,"

where was they before getting into the house? the garage maybe?

did they go in the house after he told her the plan? or did he tell her the plan after getting into the house?