tl;dw he had a “flat affect” after his daughter died because he was autistic, not because he was a murderer
Not even going into autism, there are so many misconceptions around what constitutes an appropriate reaction to death.
It's fucked up to think of the people tortured and murdered because they didn't react to tragedy in a socially acceptable way.
And we somehow trust judges in the US to make an accurate call on this?
I'm still stuck on the part where we convict people due to their emotions and not due to evidence that they committed the crime. Smiling during a robbery is not conducive to actually performing said robbery, so why is it admissible in court? The judge shouldn't need to make a call on this at all.
I've seen a lot of "the victim was insufficiently distressed therefore they must be lying" in spousal abuse cases. Performance is apparently a huge part of how much you're believed in court
Alternatively, "The victim was overly distressed and therefore was lying."
Western legal systems tend to favor Morton's Fork.
Isn't a flat affect considered typical nowadays after a traumatic event?
This is what happens when an entire population is educated by Hollywood.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Unlimited prejudiced court cases on everyone involved in "Former Three-Letter Agency Body Language Expert Explains How To Spot A Liar" videos
