Body language, touching face gave him away !!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5913795/Who-killed-Sharon-Birchwood.html

How police caught Sharon Birchwood's killer with barely any evidence www.dailymail.co.uk Graham 'George' Birchwood, from Epsom in Surrey, hired a hitman to strangle his vulnerable ex-wife Sharon Birchwood, 52, with electrical cord at her home, in the hope of inheriting £475,000.

DC Roger Deacon, one of the officers who interviewed her ex-husband, told how they carefully studied Birchwood's every move during interviews, and noted how he squinted his eyes and touched his head with his hands while lying about his innocence. 


They were immediately suspicious of his body language, as whenever he protested his innocence his body would change; when he was telling the truth his face was open and his eyes were wide, but when he lied he had his head in his hands and he squinted his eyes.

In the pic where he has his eyes closed.   I would like to know what Hobs thinks about this if poss.

As I have often said, I have little time for pseudo-science.



You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear, you read what you want to read.

As I understand it some people took a dislike to him because of his looks, not his body language?

Oh right... seeing what you want to see.

plebgate wrote:As I understand it some people took a dislike to him because of his looks, not his body language?

Hi, Plebgate,but Mr Jefferies was already made a suspect by the orignal killer wasn't when he,when spoke to the Police within 24 hrs did he know of anyone suspicious?
So it was the UK Police who first traversed Mr Jefferies to the press,you know the"Coppers nose" once again missing the target?

@bluiebag no not me seeing what I want to see.   I simply would like to know Hobs' opinon as I find it very interesting.

Yes, I think you are right Willow in your post.

Also some of the press headlines were horrible about him based solely on his looks.  I seem to remember much was made about his hair and looking weird etc.

plebgate wrote:@bluiebag no not me seeing what I want to see.   I simply would like to know Hobs' opinon as I find it very interesting.

Yes, I think you are right Willow in your post.

Also some of the press headlines were horrible about him based solely on his looks.  I seem to remember much was made about his hair and looking weird etc.

A bit like Two Doctors who were able to dupe people with the "Profession" they served,then if you fit,meet a certain "Persona" and have UK operatives come to your aid like"International Rescue,Risk Control Group"PR Bullshitters,but could never ever swipe away a "True Portugal Detective",Mr Goncalo Amaral,Bungling Cops on Two hour Lunches,Sardine Munches,see how they fit into a certain Modus Operandi!

Goncalo Amaral had his "Coppers nose Antennea "firmly locked on his case,Leicestershire Police were on their own mission of protection at all costs on missing Madeleine McCann?
After Eleven years they are still apparently "Clueless" as to what is supposed to have happened on Operation Grange_Gold Group collaboration 8 May 2007,Geddit!

Just as in the case of Un-solved Murder of Daniel Morgan,the bungling Metropolitan Police Service,with five very Senior Officers retire,move to pastures anew collecting £300.00 per days attendance in the "House Of Frauds",still asking for 18 Months to tie up loos leads in Daniel Morgans case after 31 yrs of Investigation,the stinking cesspitt alongside a London River!

To Un-cover the case it isn't just "Body Language" that uncovers the case but proper Detective work,but then again if "London's finest" are sent to help certain persons,this is what they do best,"He who pays the Piper, Calls the tunes to be played" and the Band played on and on?

The words have to guide us, not their looks or body language.

The world would be a far safer place if all criminals looked the same.
Beady eyes, a speech impediment, a physical disability such as a limp or hump, bad teeth, bad smell, preference for stripey tops and carrying bags marked swag or carrying whatever object shows their criminal preference.
Then we could lock them all up before they commit a crime, simple.

We cannot always go on body language because although there may be some worldwide examples that everyone uses, it can boil down to their nationality, their upbringing, even if they have mental health issues such as autism or schizophrenia.

At best they can be a guide.

Letting the subject speak freely using their own freely spoken words and in return asking questions using only their own words will reveal the truth.

There can and will be times when their words can indicate guilt or guilty knowledge, then we seek to learn to what their guilt or guilty knowledge relates to,

It could be the crime for which they are being questioned about be it criminal or civil such as  writing a threatening letter or trying to cross and international board to work when claiming to be a tourist.
it could also be relating to something which has nothing to do with the crime  but which is senitive to them and they seek to keep hidden.
It could be an illicit relationship, substance abuse, financial worries such as debt, it could be they  smacked a child for doing something wrong when the child did not do as they were told and now the parent feels guilt and shame,
It could be any number of things.

The interviewer seeks to learn why there are sensitivities and if it relates to the case or not (or maybe another case)

Truthful people will  not take ownership of something they did not do.
They will not accept that others could see them as guilty for they did nothing wrong.
They will state repeatedly they did nothing wrong and when asked why, they will state often (and usually loudly) they are telling the truth.
They will brook no inference for anything other than they did not do what they are being accused of.

Guilty people can take ownership of what they are being accused of.
They allow for others to think they are guilty.
They do not say they are telling the truth, instead they call upon deity or swear on a loved ones life or come up with explanations as to why they could not have done it (alibi building)
They repeat back the language of the interview (parroting)
They minimize or change the language eg. did you kill...? becomes i did not harm...

Particularly in sex offences, one does not uses words like rape or molest since the subject may not see it as that but rather consensual or touch, tickle, cuddle.
This is why it is important to learn the subjects internal dictionary and to let them speak freely, seeking to learn what certain words mean to them.

If the subject is accused of molestation and they say it was tickling then we seek to learn what they mean by tickling.
Where does it involve?
Is it over or under clothes?
Who initiates the tickling?
and so on.

The same with child victims since they may not know what the actualc crime is called and may only know it is tickling or play fighting or cuddling.
We seek to learn what the child means by tickling or play fighting or cuddling or whatever.

The subject will tells us whether they are being truthful or deceptive.
We want them to tell us whether they are being truthful or deceptive.
We let them talk and the truth will be learned.

When the subject finally admits they were lying and now tell us the truth, they often speak of the relief they now feel, no more stress from lying.

The mccanns have told us the truth of what happened to Maddie if you listen to their language.
They have told us she is dead.
They have told us they have hidden her really well.
They have told us others in the group are involved.
They have told us the children were not left alone in apt. 5a each night.
They have told us the children were babysat by whichever of the group was missing from the table each night.
When kate and gerry express no concern for the well being of Maddie nor call out to her or her alleged abductor, it is because they know that Maddie is beyond harm and that there was no abductor.
There are indications in their language relating to sexual abuse either of the children or of kate herself.
With kate it could perhaps provide a motive or even a defense.
Kate has told us she had issues relating to Maddie and this again could provide a motive and a defense.
Kate's book tells us much regarding the family dynamics and her own life.

When the mccanns tell us Maddie is dead and they hid her body really well, Believe Them

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So is pseudo-science.

Thannks Hobs.   It's all very interesting indeed.

As with the Gerry McCann gallery, these images are but stills captured from video footage.

As regards Kate McCann, I venture to suggest it's play acting pure and simple - I seriously doubt there is a single example of Kate McCann's true emotion captured with the exception of perhaps this..