User reviews

To the nay sayers - you obviously don't understand the law. In the case of Prince Andrew, they cannot say that they know 100% he is guilty. They may know it and so may the Police. But until he is charged and then convicted (IN A COURT OF LAW) of course they have to be careful. I found it an interesting series. Should do one on Mark Lundy from NZ. Good case of overacting.

Brilliant Crime Documentary Explaining the bare Bones of each crime.

I love this programme, it's fascinating. I find myself looking at body language etc. all the time now!

The presenters talk about body language, speech etc, however, a lot of it seems a strong push. One, they're working with already known facts i.e this person is the killer - oh we know that because certain aspects of their body language betrayed them. No.. we already know they're the killer - a simple shrug didn't portray anything otherwise you'd be used beforehand.

Hard watch for sure. They also seem to have an agenda beforehand. Just watched the Shemima Begum episode - they clearly have their own opinion which they are pushing in this show, instead of dealing with hard facts as it should be.

This is a very informative show. The experts really know what they're talking about, that's why they're the experts. I have read some of the reviews questioning the presenters qualifications in these matters, which is unfortunate, as they clearly don't know what it takes to be asked to review these cases & present them in a way that the average viewer can understand. I personally really appreciate all 3 presenters for what they do! I will always recommend this show to anyone who likes true crime content. It really is interesting to watch. Hopefully they continue to make this show so we can all continue to enjoy it.

It's very easy to pick out these tell tale signs in the already convicted..but none of this would be useful without all the other evidence. This programme couldn't be made about suspects because they'd be wrong more times than right...

This is true crime with its heart in the right place...education. There are bad people out there and we all need to know how to recognise signs. The 3 presenters here are top notch experts in human behaviour and it is thrilling to listen to each of their takes on any given piece of filmed footage of the offenders. I only watch true crime and this is up there in my top 3 shows, along with Cold Justice and 24 Hours in Police Custody (oh and Deadly Women!.) Not only are these shows unmissable but they are totally re-watchable, a sign of a great true crime doc for me. I hope this team keeps making Faking It for years to come!!

As another reviewer pointed out, this is nothing more than self-described "experts" pointing at behavioral characteristics and claiming that they are somehow indicative of lying when the subject has already been exposed as a liar. In one case in the first series one of the "experts" actually engaged in the very behavior they claimed indicated lying *while they were saying the subject was a liar*!

It's well known to any investigator worth his/her salt that people behave differently and react to stress differently. Italians are well known for talking with their hands-- does that mean all of them are lying all the time? Of course not!

This isn't science by any stretch of the imagination-- it's the opinion of snake oil salesmen who would be working carnival sideshows if they hadn't scammed their way into a television show. Just as with bite mark analysis & hair analysis, these interpretations of behavior are highly subjective and are certainly not scientific.

Two points because some of the stories are interesting to those of us who haven't heard them before but minus 10 points to the so-called experts for their laughable, transparently bad "analysis".

The series is garbage. A bunch of so - called 'experts '. expertly 'analyse' the behaviour and mannerisms of people who they KNOW are guilty of the crimes of which they are accused We can all play that game! " scratches nose" - guilty ! "Waves hands" - guilty.! Well yes - because you KNOW the outcome. Bunkum and pseudo- science to titillate the (apparently) murder - obsessed viewing public. Pathetic!

I've seen most of these and find Kerry Daynes is the only one worth listening to. She has the ability to get to the root of the person and the crime and what she says makes a lot of sense.

The other two, Dawn Archer and Cliff Lansley basically say exactly the same things on every episode. I've lost count how many times Cliff Lansley has explained the slight movement of a shoulder, expanded to the full shoulder shrug, means I have no confidence in what I'm saying. Dawn Archer seems stuck on timing answer delays then just repeats what is said.

In the Michael Jackson episode Cliff Lansley chooses to ignore all his previous expert observations in other episodes about people who shake their head in a negative motion while saying something positive. Michael Jackson did this several times yet Cliff Lansley thought he was telling the truth. Cliff Lansley is obviously a Michael Jackson fan and not being impartial at all as an expert should be.

I think it's time for a couple of new experts. Certainly keep Kerry Daynes as without her the progamme has nothing but find some new ideas for the others.

Thank god the police do not rely on this pseudo science for convictions. I have watched a couple of these and to be honest it was just to watch how bare faced some people can be but when I started to listen to the "experts" I was amazed at how "wise after the event" they were. One "expert" says things like "we call this double duping" not sure who "we" are but "we" call it bull$it. It's just a bit of voyeuristic television. When you refer to supposed living people in the past tense, of course it's a red flag it does not take a expert to work it out. Like I say, fortunately the police rely on evidence thank god.

Has anyone else noticed that, when its a crime for which someone has been convicted or there is overwhelming evidence, they're all: Yes, they're lying? But take the Prince Andrew one and they're all: Not saying he's lying. He might be...um, but we don't want to be sued so...

I cant believe people take this seriously. Let them do it before any of the studies are found guilty. Laughable on all levels, experts of picking the guilty from the guilty.

I'll be honest; I haven't seen all the episodes, as that would be a waste of time given the quality and intentions right from the start.

The Michael Jackson episode keeps repeating the same footage and tries so hard to frame him. They even included the debunked 2005 interviews, which completely undermined their credibility. Michael Jackson's team recorded everything and released footage that clearly showed how the BBC omitted crucial information and edited the interviews.

Following that scandal, Louis Theroux mentioned during an interview with the family that he wanted to provide an objective view. Even the recent documentary attempting to defame him, "Leaving Neverland," has been debunked, yet the media refuses to acknowledge it.

One of the most critical and intellectual communities can be found on topdocumentaryfilms. The documentary "Square One," which debunks all these allegations, holds the top spot. There is zero evidence to suggest MJ was guilty, even after years of investigation by the FBI and extensive surveillance. The claims made against him have been proven to be lies, as have the framed interviews.

However, this documentary fails to address any of that and works excessively hard to frame him for sensational purposes. If this is the standard and low quality of documentary making, I won't be watching any other episodes. I recommend staying away from this content.

Thus is a programme that if itself Fake and the people presenting it are Fake. It's easy to call someone a fake or lier after the fact, even i become an expert in human characteristics after someone has apeared in court and found guilty and sentenced, oh look r kelly nods husband head while saying no he moves his foot while releasing tension in the body now he's clenching his fingers together, niw he's whuspering which is really screaming niw hes shouting which means he full of anger!!! Where were these so called experts before these so called criminals were found or accused of guilt maybe they could have put a stop to the crimes and saved some innocents lives. Pot calling the kettle! I think I'll apply to be a presenter because I know a Fake criminal after they have pled guilty.

I think we all have the experience to see what someone's body movements is saying.

I loved body language expert Judi Jame when does used to cone on the big brother show and do live descriptions of the housemates movements, 😂 this is the sane only about people who have been egotistical in trying to get away with murder.

The experts on the show faking it are just explaining what they were doing to try act normal when they've been going about their lives after murdering someone.

They are telling us what they did in the interview room. It's good to see the way that people get questioned by police, and that it's no wonder how a lot get away with serious crimes.

There should be a body language expert there for all interview rooms because innocent people would get out quicker and not be held just because the police think they're guilty when the criminals get out on bail and end up killing people sometimes the see day the police release them now that's where they've made many mistakes.

I enjoyed & watched Seasons 1, 2 & part of 3 of the 2017 Faking It: Tears of a Crime TV Series. The format is the same throughout so I did get a bit bored & didn't complete S3. I also watched Michael Jackson: A Faking It Special TV Episode from the newer 2021 TV Series.

The Michael Jackson Faking It Special is an inconclusive investigative documentary which is loaded with 'bias' against the Michael Jackson, in favour of a form of 'justice' being served. There is a panel of 3 'experts': (1) Dr Cliff Lansley - The Watcher - Body Language Analyst; (2) Professor Dawn Archer - Professor of Linguistics; (3) Kerry Daynes - Forensic Psychologist & Consultant Profiler.

I think MJ was very much a 'misunderstood' person. MJ was to the music industry what the fictional character Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory is/was to science. MJ was a 'nerd' or a 'geek' as the Americans say. MJ's 'superhero' was Peter Pan & he likened himself to his superhero Peter Pan, so what? In another dimension we just woulda accepted that & called him a 'spastic', or a weirdo or awkward - not rebellious awkward but 'odd' awkward. The problem with being 'misunderstood', is that the more you try to explain, justify & rationalise & reason with 'normal people', is the more 'hot water' you throw on yourself, or the bigger the grave you dig for yourself. Sadly & in the end, MJ chose the latter.

Michael Jackson said it himself right at the beginning of the show, "I AM Totally Innocent Of Any Wrong Doing". The show then goes out to discredit the loyalty of the fans & prove MJ's hypothesis - if you like - as 'wrong', or being 'wrong' or in the 'wrong', - ie: how could a 'Thirty Something' year old grown up man be that stupid that he did not realise that 'his' 'brand' of 'innocence' is tottally unacceptable in 'the real world'? So rather than prove MJ is innocent or guilty of the charges he stands accused of, the experts resort to ridiculing MJ's thought process, intelligence & intellect. This is done by a series of varied film footage, and interviews with Michael & other family members, over the course of his life.

MJ was an exceptional artist which straight away puts us on notice that he is Less' skilled at 'Faking It' & even lesser skilled at facing reality. What I mean is that most of us are very good at putting on a bravado that gets us through the day or gets us through life. We 'mask' our 'childhood trauma' with various addictions, obsessiveness, prayers & the belief in demons, ghosts, ghouls & god.

...And what of the parents of these boys who grew up & jumped on the band wagon of the media circus accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation & child sexual abuse? Where were the parents of these children that MJ is accused of having carnal relationships with? Yep! They were right there with them - what's the word - 'grooming' - they were 'grooming' their children to 'cash-in' on the act, as their 'voice', their truth is not represented in this Mockumentary.

By the same token, I do so hate these celebs & superstars who cry about their harsh upbringing & the current influences & involvement their parents had or still have in their lives. Boo-Hoo-Hoo! The Jacksons - including Michael are all part of that, so I Am really not sympathetic to their 'hard luck' stories, because they've enjoyed every moment of the fame, fortune & notoriety that the limelight has brought them. It's only when their privileged lifestyle is at stake does the media circus become problematic to them.