Same. My abuser (ew it feels gross to call them my anything) even did the same thing amber heard is doing and he tried to flip the script on me by gaslighting me into thinking that I was actually the one doing the abusing instead of him. It messed with my head so much... Now even just thinking of him makes me want to throw up. If I was forced to go to court with him I'd likely have panic attacks just from being in the same room as him and likely wouldn't be able to Answer questions correctly because he had this effect on me where he always triggered my disassociation which basically makes me zone out and stare into space regardless of what's happening around me

Wow, you see a lot, and seem pretty sure of the veracity of your suppositions. You could probably do something professionally with that skill if so. I haven't seen much video footage, but my friend reads Depp's behaviour (the attempts at humour, the laughing that you mention) as indicative of "smug arrogance", I think was how she put it - so she's got completely the opposite feeling from you. Anecdotally, she seems pretty "good at spotting a phony" as you put it (she has an almost 6th sense, it seems like, when one of our group gets a new boyfriend) but don't know if she's as good as you.

There's a few posts here saying "Heard must be lying because I've been abused and I would never act like the way she is in court (staring him down, seeming unafraid to be in the same room etc.)". Ok, let's agree that the way you imagine yourself acting in a hypothetical situation is not only correct, but also the way all human beings (Heard included) would act in that situation. So is the way JD is acting in court the correct way for an abused person to act when faced with their abuser? Because he also seems unafraid to be in the same room. There's a lot of footage of him making little jokes, chuckling, reacting with bemusement, etc. Is that the way you would react faced with your abuser? It doesn't seem like it from what you've said...

I have quoted that exact same conversation from the talented mr Ripley when I explain what it was like to be in a relationship w a narcissist and being love bombed. The quote is perfect and very rudimentary in its explanation. Ive must've quoted to people a million times to explain how I felt. Depp is definitely a love bomber that's easily accessed from all his exes saying the exact same thing about how their romances start and then comes the outbursts w him throwing things around them. The only person that won't confirm or deny this is Kate moss. But Jennifer grey said this, Ryder, Ellen barkin and his first and second wife. They also said he was paranoid and jealous. He's got to be so incredibly charming and beautiful when he first shines his sun on you I can't even imagine especially when he was young and gorgeous. I'm not taking sides here I'm just stating what has been already said by others

Newsweek fact checked it too. She said she felt like the most beautiful woman in the world when they first started the romance and then he'd just disappear The quote in the movie was when the his sun shines on you it's glorious then he forgets you and it's so cold. When his attention is on you, you feel like the only person in the world. She didn't say any of that.

This is for Julie as there's no reply button under her comment. Amber's "abuses we're documented through her therapists". You do know people can and do lie to their therapists? Do you also know that it isn't that hard to get a restraining order? I've had to get one. I didn't even need much proof. Also, what about the officer who testified about responding to a call from Amber claiming abuse, yet there was no sign of a fight and no marks or injuries? Amber Heard has exactly zero proof. Not one shred. She claimed that in one incident that he gave her 2 black eyes, a broken nose and a split lip. Those kind of injuries include massive swelling that takes several days to weeks to go away. Yet there is video evidence of her on a live television program the very next day with not one single injury, no swelling, nothing. No makeup in the world can cover that up. Not to mention if she had shown up to the studio with the injuries she claimed someone would have spoken about it.

To Julie: where are all the alleged medical records she should have if all this severe violence occurred? Where is all the witness statements from all the staff? Where are the security footage of it as there are cameras in their building and in the penthouses? Why was he the only one ever being seen with signs of abuse? Why does he have all the dv medical records? Where does he say he did this to her on her secret recordings where she admits to abusing him? I’m an abuse survivor so I can read body language extremely better than most and she is lying 100% I will bet my life on it! I know an abuser when I see on and a victim as well! She is not one! Please educate yourself on DV victims! Your post is insulting to true victims! Plus she can’t act to she anyones life! His money was running out so she wanted to get out and ruin him as well!

She literally said to him in one of the recordings that no one would believe he was the victim....

Yes, yes you are.

:) 🐧

Please be a penguin. I really want to tell my friends i had a conversation online with a penguin

Yes and you can be anything you want to be lol! I told mine I'm the Fairy Queen and I rule over a fairy kingdom in my back yard so does that make it true because I said it and it was also documented! Point made very well..check and mate!

Thanks! Also the piece on Russel Williams as an exercise of the Detective mastering interrogation incorporating body language. Riveting.

"Their backgrounds lend much credibility" BUZZ! Argument from authority. Either body language studies can get replicable results under lab conditions or they're junk science. There's no midway there.

You're one of those annoying people who don't understand informal fallacies. An argument from authority is used when an expert in another field is being used as credibility for an arugment/proposition in a field not relating to theirs. I.E. body language expert being deferred to about body language is not an argument from authority.

WRONG. An argument from authority is when you rely on an "expert's" credentials to make your case instead of presenting a logical argument. For example, "I think you're diabetic because your blood glucose is over 45" is not an argument from authority, but "I think you're diabetic because I'm a doctor" IS. You're thinking of argument from *false* authority, which is a different thing. Looks like you're one of those annoying people who doesn't understand informal fallacies, Eli.

All those points are totally important considerations. And that’s why establishing a baseline is crucial. That’s essentially why police interrogations often start off by building rapport with a subject; to get them more relaxed and establish a baseline for their behavior and mannerisms while asking benign questions. Then they can take note of clusters of behavioral changes. The whole point of analyzing these things if to look for potential signs of deception. No credible analyst will say that any one cue is 100% deception.

I kinda disagree - as actors they’re portraying (faking? inventing? mimicking?) an idea of a personality and recognisable character behaviours, not the basic primal, subliminal responses we all show unwittingly and instinctively.

That's a common misunderstanding of what actors do. As an actor myself I can tell you that actors are trained to dive deep into and reveal their own feeling, not to fake feelings. That's exactly what actors are trained to not to do. So, if anything, most good actors would be more prone to being truthful through their facial expressions and emotions than an untrained person. And any actor knows what a crucial part of communication, what a huge part is nonverbal. And the kinds of behaviors that she is describing are unconscious behaviors. Tiny micro gestures and unconscious indicators that people don't consciously control. A good actor is not going to curl their lip to express disgust - unless they're actually feeling disgust.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

However you are talking about an actress that has always been very bad at her job and an actor that is moderately bad at his job. They've been trained, but doesn't mean their good at it

It has been used in court

I didn’t say credible in a court of law. Just that we all use it instinctively, therefore a credible, proven proposition. The FBI uses body language training techniques…

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

BUZZ! Argument from authority.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

It's not credible period. Humans are too complex for this field of study to be factual. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies use a lot of things in their line of work it doesn't mean it's credible and it doesn't make it correct.

Your entire comment history just reads as one bitter, crass whinge after another. I’m happy with my more thoughtful assessment thanks!

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

You mean more gullible.

Disagree with the first part of your comment, Ben Moss. You can most certainly use the body language of a stranger to figure out if they're anxious, angry, lying, etc. You may miss some of the more minute cues if you're not experienced in reading body language, but you can certainly use it to get a read on someone you don't know. Second part of your comment is shocking. I haven't really followed this situation at all so I wasn't aware that she'd done something so bad. Not only hijacking her assistant's trauma for her own use, but also proving to the world that she comfortable lying about big and terrible things. Telling someone that their permed mullet looks nice doesn't mean you're a pathological liar, but lying about rape certainly does.

Which studies? The studies I've seen show it to be very effective when done properly. It's important to know that no body language signs are the same between people (despite popular belief), which is why a baseline is established from a timeline of behaviors (same reason why we can read people close to us better than any expert). It's inadmissible because of how easy it is to get it wrong, not because it doesn't work. With several days of trial footage, there's a decent baseline (though admittedly not perfect), and the individual is highly trained in it, which is less likely to produce inaccuracies (but not impossible). I agree that without any baseline for behavior body language is useless, and any attempts to read someone without one are little better than guessing in those situations, though.

Three are DePaulo & Pfeifer, 1986; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Kraut & Poe, 1980. A meta-analysis by DePaulo, Charlton, Cooper, Lindsay, & Muhlenbruck, 1997, suggested that lie-detection training does not improve people's *ability* to detect lies but only their *confidence* in doing so - in other words, they will hold strongly to their conclusions even though those conclusions have a roughly equal chance of being wrong.

Lie detectors literally are pseudoscience. They don't work at all. Great example there, big hoss. What separates science from pseudoscience isn't time - it's results that can be replicated under laboratory conditions. DNA and fingerprinting can pass that test. Body language and using polygraphs to read minds can't.

Yeah, that's not it. Fingerprints were suspect because they were unproven. When proven, they were accepted. Body language interpretation has been actively proven wrong. Not to mention, these people are trained actors. Trying to read body language here is clickbaity entertainment.