(source)
Amanda Knox, an American exchange student, was convicted in 2009 of murdering her flatmate, Meredith Kercher. In 2011, on appeal, her conviction was overturned.
At The Guardian this month, Ian Leslie discusses the way that Knox’s body language and facial expressions were used in arguments as to her guilt. He quotes jury members, police officers, court watchers, and others making such arguments. The lead investigator, Edgardo Giobbi, for example, was quoted saying:
We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect’s psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation.
A bystander speculated: “Her eyes didn’t seem to show any sadness, and I remember wondering if she could have been involved.” The head of the murder squad, Monica Napoleoni, discussed the video below, arguing that kissing wasn’t the kind of behavior an innocent person would engage in:
Leslie argues that the tendency to think we can read “someone else’s state of mind simply by looking at them” is a common social psychological tendency. Describing the work of Emily Pronin, a psychologist at Princeton University, he explains:
…there is a fundamental asymmetry about the way two human beings relate to one another in person. When you meet someone, there are at least two things more prominent in your mind than in theirs – your thoughts, and their face. As a result we tend to judge others on what we see, and ourselves by what we feel. Pronin calls this “the illusion of asymmetric insight.”
Unfounded belief into the insight into others’ minds has been shown to hold experimentally. Certainty that Knox was guilty, then, may very well have been born of an overconfidence in our ability to read the mental states of others.
Thanks to Matt Vidal for sending the link!
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 21
Anonymous — October 11, 2011
Typo in the year she was released on appeal. Says 2001, should say 2011.
Theophile Escargot — October 11, 2011
There was a bit more to the case against Amanda Knox than "they could tell Knox was guilty just by looking at her."
"The report describes the circumstances of the murder, and indicates a number of points at which Knox's descriptions of what happened were drastically at variance with material evidence. It notes that Knox's falsehoods would, if verified, have provided her and Sollecito with an alibi. On the other hand, as she was seen at a grocery shop purchasing cleaning products when she claimed to have been in bed, her alibi is untenable. It touches on Knox's attempt to frame her boss, a bar owner named Patrick Lumumba, for the killing. (She claimed, when the case against Lumumba collapsed, to have 'imagined' hearing Meredith Kercher scream as she was sexually assaulted and murdered by Lumumba.) It describes the incompatibility of the wounds with the 'single attacker' theory, suggesting that multiple attackers must have restrained Meredith Kercher and assaulted her from different angles while preventing her from engaging in defensive movements. "
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/10/whatever-it-is-it-isnt-justice.html
I think it's a case that falls into the grey area of Reasonable Doubt. There wasn't enough evidence to convict her for certain. But there was some evidence against her, well beyond body language.
I think the obvious analogy here would be O.J. Simpson. I wonder if in this case, people of the same ethnicity or background as her, are more likely to believe that she's innocent?
Kat — October 11, 2011
This pissed me about so much! I know myself well enough to know that I would not strongly grief in any way for a person I just met 5 weeks ago. Period.
Kate — October 11, 2011
Maybe I'm worse than I thought at reading body language, but I always thought she looked upset in that clip, and this kiss was supposed to be comforting and say "it's all going to be ok." I never saw it as particularly romantic, and certainly not celebratory.
Larry Charles Wilson — October 11, 2011
A tiresome subject.
Lark — October 11, 2011
It's interesting to me that a woman of color was murdered and Amanda Knox apparently attempted to implicate a man of color in the crime.
It's also worth noting that this case was framed very differently in the US than in Europe, with a lot of US reliance on "oh, those swarthy incompetent corrupt Italian judges and police". One has to wonder how this case would have appeared if a blond white woman had been murdered and the accused was a woman of color.
Obviously, Knox's behavior during a stressful and traumatic event should not be considered evidence.
Going Rampant — October 11, 2011
You know, even if she's a sociopath who shows no empathy when presented with things that would be disturbing to normal people, that wouldn't be evidence she committed this particular crime.
Anonymous — October 11, 2011
I think facial and behavioral cues probably play a marginal role in convictions. I find it improbable you could get a group of people to convict someone based on how their eyes looked. I haven't followed the Amanda Knox case much, but from what I can gather, she was primary convicted because of incompetent and / or corrupt prosecutors and police officers presented inaccurate, trumped-up DNA evidence. When her legal team brought in experts to debunk the evidence they presented, she was let free. Undoubtedly the DNA evidence is what convicted her, and it's falsification is what set her free. Facial cues and behavioral reads probably played almost no role in her conviction.
Also, I think behavior can inform guilt or innocence (though it would should never be anything but a moderate consideration), though it obviously depends on what type of behavior. Going and kissing someone is a bit different than say something like Casey Anthony's behavior where after her daughter went "missing" she went out drinking and partying and told no one about it. Obviously, that behavior seems relevant to our assessment of guilt or innocence.
Jess — October 11, 2011
When I was a witness (and a victim) in court, the defense used my body language as 'evidence' that I was lying. Behaviours I exhibited, (mostly sobbing, and then, as my examination continued into its totally superfluous fifth or so hour, flattening of affect), were touted as proof that I was a manipulative actress who had conjured up the entire event. I even felt stigmatised by my choice to be shielded from looking at the defendant.
The judge didn't agree with the defense and didn't comment on anyone's courtroom behaviour in his ruling - due to his legal expert status perhaps?
This seems to be much more prominent in discussions about women - another obvious case is Casey Anthony, whose behaviour was similarly dissected. I never saw any commentary claiming that OJ Simpson stayed out all night partying, or that Roman Polanski was a slut who posted pictures of himself smiling on facebook, or that DSK got a pedicure and a haircut before going to court which proves he's guilty. Anyone else?
silver surfer — October 12, 2011
This analysis is so deep.