Body Language Analyst REACTS to Johnny Depp Lawyers. Why did Amber Heard LOSE?

i think that her impression on the jury was i mean he writes his scripts when he is performing roles and this is no different what's going on everyone welcome to the behavioral arts and in this video i'm going to do an in-depth analysis of ben chu and camille vasquez in some interviews that they did talking about their client johnny depp we're gonna look at their body language we're gonna look at their behaviors and try to see what they're really thinking about this whole case okay so some of you have some question marks about what's going on here and i'm going to address that so last week i did a video on elaine bredehoff amber heard's attorney as she did interviews just like these ones and first of all i want to thank you very much for the feedback you guys had some amazing things to say but in that video i said that that was going to be the last one that i do about johnny depp versus amber heard and when these interviews happened i was like oh what do we do do we reopen this chapter of our lives so i went to my community page right here on youtube and i asked you the subscribers what do you want and it wasn't even close an overwhelming majority was like no we want this analysis so here i am telling you i i don't know if this is the last one apparently i'm clueless as to what's going on so let's leave it open-ended let's see what happens and let's not put anything off the table that being said let's jump right into this analysis so we have four different interviews we have both camille and ben on good morning america we have both of them on the today show and then we have just ben chu on the line crime channel on youtube where he did some interviews and on court tv where he did a solo interview as well and i'm gonna mix and match uh some of these interviews it's not gonna be one then the other and after this analysis i'm gonna even do an update on last week's video because there was a couple of topics that got a lot of great conversation going on in the comments and i'm gonna address those and answer some questions that you guys had so it's gonna be a fun one let's start now during your cross-examination what was your impression of ms heard's impression on the jury i think that her impression on the jury was what it was i think something that i focused on and we focused on in that cross-examination was using her words against her and it was very important for us to every question that was asked was tied to something she had said previously okay so we're starting with one of my favorite questions and answers from all these interviews and it's directed to camille vasquez and she's being asked what she thinks the jury thought of amber heard so the first thing we notice is a grooming gesture she fixes her hair before she answers and this is something we see quite often with camille just before she's about to take a question she will see this kind of fixing her hair now grooming gestures are things that are very common just before we speak or present something you might see someone fix their color fix their hair adjust you know the the cuffs on their shirt even licking of the lips to appear more presentable now on the channel i talk a lot about clusters of deception these are behaviors that when we see multiple at the same time they raise the probability that somebody is being deceptive and grooming is part of a cluster but this is a great example as to why a cluster is necessary because in this case there's nothing else going on that would indicate in any way that she intends on being deceptive in this case the grooming is just that you know just fixing herself before she answers that's it i love what happens next the camera cuts to her and we see her looking to the side with this tight-lipped smile and this is something we often do when we're just looking for the right words to say we need a moment of pause and that's what's happening then we see her i flutter and i flutter is whenever we're processing information so whether we're struggling with something that we're going to say or taking in information just processing information typically and now she's looking up and she's just searching she's just looking for the right thing to say here we see her eyes continue to search as she goes back to the side we see another tight-lipped smile as she's desperately trying to find the right word and then she finally comes up with i think the jury's impression was what it was that's the best she's got my interpretation of this is that in that moment she's going through the first 50 words that she would use to describe what the jury thought of amber heard and she's going no can't use that can't say that on tv no that one's not good you know what it was what it was almost like i think we all know what it was next we see a really significant pronoun shift so she's answering this question in i which makes sense because she was asked what her opinion is then she says i focused on and shifts edits we focused on and looks over to ben we focused on using her words against her something that i focused on and we focused on in that cross-examination was using her words against her and from now on she uses us because she after that she goes that was really important for us so there's a pronoun shift that we actually see because she goes i focused on we focused on and i think in that moment she's trying to say this was a group strategy i think it's also a little bit of her saying like that sort of aggressive vibe that we saw there that's not typically me that was that was something we decided as a group and that's what i was bringing out i was a spokesperson for what was important to us i want you to pay attention to something that's happening in that answer that's going to be a theme for both ben chu and camille vazquez throughout these interviews and i find really admirable and it's this she was given a completely open opportunity here to slam down on amber heard she was asked flat out what do you think the jury thought of her now we have a verdict who speaks for itself we have social media pretty much everyone pointing out how amber's sort of testimony or cross-examination was a train wreck for amber and camille has this opportunity right here to praise herself to elevate herself to say how much of a train wreck it was she does not take that opportunity she just talks about you know how it was what it was and this was our strategy she sticks to talk about their strategy and she very politely declines this opportunity to completely demolish amber heard she chooses the higher road and doesn't take that they're both going to do this a lot throughout these interviews and i personally find it really admirable i'm sure you've seen elaine brederhof's comments after the verdict saying that the jury was tainted by the publicity that there was suppressed evidence what's your reaction to that i was really disappointed to hear that because she's a very good lawyer very experienced and it seemed to cast aspersions on the jurors integrity because as you know they took up an oath right she points to medical records text messages from stephen duders things like that would that have made a difference can you enlighten us and i don't believe any of the evidence that was excluded and there was evidence excluded on both sides and you're very familiar there are rules of evidence that apply i think her honor you know played it right down the middle was very consistent in a rulings and i i think it's an improper characterization and perhaps she dismissed okay quite a bit to unpack there first of all in my analysis of elaine i said that she had these sort of pre-written answers and any time a question would come out she would almost ignore it and play the answer that she wants to put there and a lot of the wording a lot of the cadence it was presented the exact same way in a lot of cases here we get the same words the same sort of little phrases but often what happens before and after is very different but there's a couple of words that come up a lot one of them is disappointed disappointment i think that was very disappointing to hear and again that suggestion was was disappointing to hear i think it's disappointing i was really disappointed to hear that i think it's disappointing and i feel like this is something that i don't know if they discussed it beforehand but ben schwa and camilla vazquez both used the word disappointment and disappointment a lot where other more demeaning or mean words would fit so did he script these answers i don't know if he scripted the answers but i do believe that this word disappointment was something that he noted and maybe he shared with camille and said you know that's like a way to stay politically correct while still saying that we weren't happy with this particular thing let's look at his physical baseline because as you know very often i look at baseline so that i know when a behavior deviates from it so we have a couple of interesting things here first of all ben chu does move forward and back with his head like this when he talks but his hands are quite still most of the time his hands are down like this they're together i think this for him is is to comfort him a little i don't think he likes the spotlight i don't think he's comfortable with the attention he's getting he's going to talk about that a little later so i think this is just him being a little uncomfortable with this interview setting we also have in the court tv interview more so than the law in crime but in both these heavy blinks as he says something you might see these heavy blinks now that's interesting because in the other interviews on the morning shows it really doesn't happen that often every now and then maybe but really not that often so i was really scratching my head over what this is and during the stream earlier this week on eric hunley's channel i think we got the answer one of eric's followers by the name of carrie mache or machete i don't know if you pronounced the tea or not said that as someone works in video production they believe that these blinks are a reaction to the light and i think that that is a really really good theory as a lot of you know with my career in entertainment i've done a lot of interviews and performances on tv shows morning shows talk shows including the today show and shows like good morning america or the today show usually have bigger sets bigger production and the lights are quite a bit further away in fact you can tell if you look at him on the today show that there isn't a bright reflection on his hair or on his forehead this usually indicates a light that is further away because the light disperses more so on the today's show we get a very sort of soft filtered light but if we look at the court tv interview we see a reflection right on the forehead and in the law and crime interview we see hard light hitting him over here on top of the hair so this would indicate that in both those cases there's probably a light panel pretty close to him furthermore you might notice that benchu has light-colored eyes he has blue eyes and people with blue eyes are more sensitive to light than those of us who have darker colored eyes so to me it's very likely and i really love this theory that those panels are closer in fact i'm pretty sure that they are based on the reflections and they're causing more stress on his eyes and these heavy blanks are to correct that subconsciously so to be clear i think that these heavy blinks are something he does do but because of these lights they're just being increased and he's doing them quite a bit more i want to go back to what i was saying earlier about camille vasquez passing up the opportunity to insult amber heard he's given multiple opportunities here to insult elaine and her credentials and her credibility i mean we've all done it we all talked about our interviews in very unfavorable ways and some things that she said that were really wrong and yet every opportunity here to say you know as a self-respecting lawyer that's not something she would have done not only did he not take that opportunity but he went the other way he says she's a very good lawyer he talks about her experience he doesn't get personal about it and here's what's interesting it's not only in his answer it's even if you look at his face while he's being asked these questions about like you know you know what elaine said and you know what she did we're not seeing him roll his eyes we're not seeing him give any of this you know sort of this look he's just sort of sitting there waiting for the question to end and then he praises her and at the end of that he even says and his audio cuts as he's saying it but he says that she could have just misspoke that that's not what she meant her characterization and perhaps she just misspoke not only does he not insult her but he actually makes excuses for her and i think honestly that's remarkable it's he's a better man than i if i had someone go on this public sort of the today show and cbs morning and say all these things about me and my team i think i'd be sour about it i think you'd see it in my face even in my reactions to these questions and i think i'd poke a little more he's going the complete opposite way on that but this is the social media age do you believe the jurors saw any of that were swayed by any of that no i don't think there's any reason to believe that the jurors violated their oath and again that suggestion was was disappointing to hear yeah i mean amber hurts a lawyer said so she said it would have been unavoidable because it's on tick tock it's on social media i mean in the in the old days you'd you'd tell the jury before they went out don't read newspapers don't watch the evening news now it's everywhere it is everywhere but at the same time they were admonished every single night and uh they had a tremendous amount of respect i think for the court and the process and they were doing the best that they could okay so a bit of a roller coaster here with uh sticking to the jury and what the jury heard and what the jury did and they're being asked if the jury saw any of what's going on on social media now i want you to notice the first thing it's really important because as they go to speak i think they were going to kind of answer at the same time but camille looks over to ben and we call this a confirmation glance which is like okay oh did you were you gonna you're gonna take that and oh no okay so she's giving her answer and at the same time she's looking to bend to be like oh that that's your answer as well typically with prepared answers if they came in here and said okay now listen we're gonna be asked this about the jury we need to say this you wouldn't see that confirmation glance you wouldn't see or look over to see oh okay so that's what you think as well you would see one of them sort of answer because that's the plan so we're getting a very spontaneous feel in the beginning of this as they both say no and it feels honest it absolutely feels honest that they think no the jury did exactly what they were supposed to do in fact ben goes on to say that he says there's no reason to believe that they broke their oath well there's two things happening here the question isn't specifically that they break their oath the question is did the jury members catch any wind of this news do you think that they heard any of what's going on out there i believe that both those things can co-exist it's very possible that they didn't go out and look for this they didn't go on social media they didn't go on tv so they respected that oath but it's also reasonable to believe that it's possible that while they're out there going on about their lives they might catch something they might overhear something they might see something at the corner of their eye it's possible then to further sort of elaborate on this camille says you know they were they were told very strictly every night what the rules were and they respected that and they did the best that they could and again i completely agree it's one thing to say they respected the law they did what they had to but it's not a ridiculous assumption to say did maybe one of them overhear something now i totally get their position they firmly have to defend the fact that that didn't happen because there's no evidence of that happening there's no reason to believe that that happened that's the perfect wording there it's maybe reasonable to assume it could have happened but there's no reason to believe that it did and this is the position that they have to take because otherwise if there's an appeal or mistrial or anything like that it could be used against them so i believe they both firmly believe that all these jury members stuck to that oath but this language of there's no reason to believe and they did the best that they could i think it sort of acknowledges that like as far as we know that didn't happen okay now we're gonna jump to the statement from everything from the trial from all these interviews from the beginning of this the single statement that shaped my opinion of johnny depp the most and i think it's massively significant but before we do do me a huge favor hit that subscribe button turn those notifications on for more behavior analysis do you think that was your point during the trial when you said i think we got this i think we're winning this or even maybe even towards the closings we didn't want to be presumptuous enough to think that we were winning because it's very hard to read the jury but we did think that johnny's direct testimony and his performance on cross was excellent he writes all of his i mean he writes his scripts when he is performing roles and this is no different mean we had suggestions as any attorneys would but ultimately what he says is all in his own words like i said that is massively important for me and let me tell you why in psychology there's a concept called psychological distancing this is a behavior that we often see in guilty people where they use language that distances them from something that they did that they're guilty of so for example if we're interrogating someone for a murder charge instead of saying something like i didn't murder and name the person like i didn't murder jessica they say something like i i would never touch her or you know i would never lay a finger on her or i never went anywhere near her so it's they don't use the word murder or kill they put distance between them and this horrifying action and then they don't use the person's name because once again they put distance between them and the person or the location i never went there instead of i was never in the bar so things like that psychological distancing now the opposite of that is also true innocent people have no problem calling it murder or kill or saying names or saying locations because they don't associate with it they're not trying to distance from it so throughout this trial there's been this big question mark over the whole thing which is johnny depp one of the most accomplished actors in the world can it be that he's up there putting on a performance putting on an act is this just this act that we're meant to believe what we just heard is for me one of the biggest testaments that ben chu johnny's lawyer zero percent believes that johnny depp is up there putting out an act or acting and the reason for that is because he compared what johnny was doing on the stand to acting and if he thought even for a second that what we saw up there was acted or fake or a presentation he would never use the word presentation which he did he would never use the word script to describe what he was doing and he would never compare what johnny said up there to him writing movie lines because it's so incriminating because it's so close to the truth he would avoid this language at all cost now again please remember there's no absolutes but to me it would be very very strange to see his own lawyer use this script if that's in fact what was going on the reason he can compare it is because in his head what we're seeing here and acting are such different thoughts that he can draw parallels between them because what johnny depp was doing up there was not acting why do you think the jury didn't believe her because when you look at the verdict it really comes down to that the issue was is what she's saying true or false and by their verdict they said it's false well my sense is that it had a lot to do with accountability that johnny owned his issues he was very candid about his alcohol and drug issues he was candid about some unfortunate texts that he wrote and i think it was a sharp contrast to ms heard who didn't seem or at least the jury may have perceived that she didn't take accountability for anything as you know i love my psychology studies and i love to apply my degree in social psychology in these videos and there's a really really great one and practical one that we can talk about right here so ben is talking about how um johnny depp talked about the difficult things his struggles with alcohol and drugs and some text messages that were really unflattering and how he took accountability for those things and how amber didn't or didn't seem to and how that played out and he's making a really really good point in fact this phenomenon that he's talking about has determined psychology it's called the prattfall effect and it was discovered by elliot aronson an american psychologist in the 60s and the study that he did was very simple and basically what he found with this study and i'll leave a link in the description to where you can go look it up but what he found is when we look at someone who is accomplished intelligent confident someone who's really admirable and we see human fault we see something off about them something wrong a clumsy moment or something less than perfect we rank them as more likable and more trustworthy and this was not the only study of its kind there's been a lot of research that shows that not only when we see the fault in something that is great and big and accomplished but when someone admits their faults it connects us more to that person we gravitate more not only to that person but to that thing to that product to that company and this is used in marketing a lot in 1962 avis was losing a lot of money over three million dollars a year and they were losing to their competition hertz who at the time was the number one the biggest car rental company in the world so avis came up with a slogan their marketing team came up with a slogan which was when you're number two you have to try harder so they publicly admit that they're number two they're not the best we're not the best but we're really trying hard and this in the eyes of the public made them so relatable showed that humane side and their sales for the first time in a decade were profitable by the millions and avis is not the only marketing campaign who has used this strategy a lot of other companies have including the popular cough medicine buckley's and their slogan which some of you must know it tastes awful and it works so we've seen again and again in marketing in research that when you admit your flaws it makes you more relatable i think ben absolutely nailed within this answer something that had a big role to play in this trial and that's the fact that johnny depp on the stand never tried to portray himself as a perfect human he admitted to his faults uh he was talking about moments in his life that he's not very proud of he didn't try to hide it when he was cross-examined about it there was any awkwardness he didn't try to deny things and then we had amber heard was pretty much the opposite of that instead of taking opportunities to say things like yeah you know what maybe i acted a bit out of line or i was doing this or you know look at evidence that she provided two things that contradict each other and go oh you know i'm so sorry you know i must have been confused about this she had no fault she kept deflecting and she kept just sort of trying to portray herself as this perfect being and i do believe that the jury would look at that and go yeah no one's no one's that perfect whereas had she had those little moments of admitting fault it could have played quite a bit differently not since oj perhaps has the trial been so closely watched and the lawyers become famous people in their own right what has that been like for you particularly you camille i think i saw someone on social media get a tattoo of your face on their body which is weird um it's been overwhelming um and surreal but to the extent that i can encourage young women to stay in school and maybe inspire them to pursue a legal career then it's all worth it well i understand you got a promotion yesterday to partner well-deserved i was going to say about time other partner right camille vasquez i love this one so they're being asked about sort of the how they're in the public eye now and this whole new fame and how everyone recognizes who they are and we see two different smiles from camille vasquez to you know at two different points of this little segment and the first one is when she's told that somebody got a tattoo of her on their arm and we see two things we see a slow blink so our eyes this is when the eyes slowly close like this and at the very same time we see this tight smile with these two lines getting accentuated and i'm gonna try to pause on that so you guys could see it because she flashes for a second there disgust she doesn't like this idea and here's what's great about this savannah guthrie the interviewer she notices this and she this is a testament to how good she's at her job because she asks the question and once she sees that expression she goes which is weird so now like she's sort of i'm with you on this it's real but she didn't say that until she saw camille vazquez's response because camille vasquez may have said yeah that's really flattering that's awesome but when she sees that sort of quick sort of flash of like slow blink and cringe she goes which is weird so she adds that in now at this point camille vasquez demonstrates exactly how you redirect a question so last week with elaine's answers we talked about this a lot and a lot of people said this without me having to point it out that a question would be asked and then she would kind of stutter and say some things that are barely relevant and then answer a different question in this case camille acknowledges it and then shifts for the positive and gives an answer that is related but but focuses on one part of the question because savannah's asking you know how are you dealing with all this there's even someone who got a tattoo of you so she chooses to answer one part of the question in a positive light so it doesn't feel dodgy and then she's asked about making partner and we see a whole different smile so it's more uplifting she's smiling with the whole face there isn't that slow blink that tight cringy smile she's smiling with the teeth big open smile we're seeing the eyes are engaged in the smile the quality of the video isn't exceptional but we can still see the crow's feet which is the wrinkling on the side of the eyes which happens when we're seeing a duchenne smile which is the word for a legitimate full smile there's also even this giggling she's giggling huh and it's coming off as a little bit nervous and i don't know if that's because she's on tv and she doesn't really like the attention but we are seeing real pride and accomplishment and happiness in this moment this is a woman who's a lot happier at her professional accomplishment than someone out there getting a tattoo of her face on them high five camille vasquez and then you hear the verdict a win on each one of johnny depp's claims what was your reaction it was emotional i mean it was we were so thrilled for him that was great and it was a great moment he looked like the weight of the world is off of his shoulders and yeah tell us more about his reaction and i see you becoming emotional you became emotional during closings too yeah i mean his life is on the line so we felt very strongly and we felt strongly that he did not do anything remotely like this and we all felt that way or we wouldn't have been working on it so oh man so let me ask you this forget forget everything i know forget all the studies forget all my background forget all of it just on this one use your intuition is this a man who is representing an abuser or is this a man who's representing a man who just got his life back forget about johnny depp's acting on the stand ben chu is not an actor look at what we're seeing here we see the tears in his eyes we see the voice crack we see those lips tighten up a little as those corners come down he's feeling that emotion and we see hand to chest this is unless you've taken a body language course and you know to do this when our hand goes to our chest it's something we do with sincere emotion because there's a rush of emotion sometimes you feel it in that heart you feel that emotion kick in and hand the chest is a common thing we see in those moments and i think anybody can look at that and say this is a man who's really he's getting choked up those lips are coming together as he's trying to hold back emotions the tears are coming out the voice is cracking listen i don't talk in absolutes i don't like to deal in absolutes at all i think everything exists in a gray area so you'll never hear me say something like johnny depp is for sure innocent but as far as benchu goes and this behavior this is a man who believes and again no absolutes but this is a man who very likely believes that his client is innocent and deserved this verdict he's so emotionally attached and even says you know they wouldn't have worked on this if they didn't believe in him this is extremely unlikely to be fake we've seen nothing from ben chu that suggests that he has the capacity to fake this kind of emotion you guys approached the bench with the judge what did she say in that moment did you know what was happening in that moment or what the verdict may have been we didn't and we were hoping that she might give us some clues but she's played it straight down the line and said that the jury had reached a verdict on as to one of the statements but had not filled out a damage and she was a prizing counsel for both sides that her of her intent to orally instruct them to put in a damages number but we didn't know whether that was a statement on the counter claim or one of the affirmative three-step statements in mr depp's case so we had a torturous several minutes while we were waiting for the jury to do that the reason i included this clip is because it provides a very important answer to something i talked about last week so in last week's video i analyzed amber's reaction and elaine's reaction to the verdict and i said that for me from behavior standpoint there was a few things that were missing and all the details are in that video and earlier this week i was on a live stream on viva frey's youtube channel and we were joined by the always amazing emily d baker otherwise known as shadow and she is an incredibly accomplished lawyer a legal analyst a youtuber she's amazing and she said that even for her there was just something missing she's seen a lot of verdicts like a lot and she said that there was just something between elaine and amber in that moment that didn't seem right in the comments quite a few people said that the reason we didn't see those emotions is because they already knew the verdict that when they approached the bench they were told what the verdict was and i'm so glad that in this interview ben chu confirmed that that is flat out wrong that they weren't told anything they didn't know anything they weren't shown the forms nothing the only thing that they knew was that something was done incorrectly in the forms and that someone had to pay someone but that in no way indicated who had to pay who so i'm really glad that he said that because i definitely felt that amber during the verdict being read was finding out for the first time and we were seeing emotions but not to the depth that i would expect to see given that situation speaking of last week's video i want to follow up on something that i ended that video with as well where i showed you a clip of whitney and amber exiting the courtroom and going to the car and i asked you to give me some impressions in the comments and there was some really interesting comments a lot of really astute observations some people caught some great stuff some people missed a few things there was a lot of discussions and i want to end by talking about what it is i saw there actually really quick before we get to that because i gotta get this off my chest i also said in last week's video that i didn't know what supers are but they were on because my friend eric told me to turn them on and there was a few really not a lot that i saw but a few people who were like dude we're not dumb we know you know what supers are and that blew my mind cause like why would anyone lie about something so stupid so i didn't i didn't know what supers were i knew what super chats were because i've been on a few streams and i've seen them you know with the super chats pop up but i didn't know what super stickers were or what super thanks for i don't know how it worked and my friend told me to turn them on and i was on his stream earlier this week and i brought that up and he absolutely confirmed that i was clueless so anyways this isn't for the commenters necessarily but if anyone was watching i was like wait did spidey really not know what they were yeah i didn't know what they were okay now moving on to whitney and amber leaving the courthouse to go to their car and there's a lot of really interesting stuff happening there with the dynamic between the two and to help me comment on this i invited a very good friend of the channel that most of you know very well this is someone who is not only really good at spotting body language but is actually a lawyer who practices in that courthouse in fairfax virginia and his comment on the video went flying actually it maxed out i didn't know that comments can do that you can no longer reply on his comment because it has the maximum amount of activity so i invited him in so we can discuss a little bit what we saw in that moment here it is welcome back to the channel rob and you had a really awesome comment that got a lot of activity talking about that specific scene where amber and whitney are seen walking out of the courthouse and into the car and i just would love to get your opinions you know for all the viewers to actually walk us through what you saw there because as a lawyer you've seen especially a lawyer who works with a lot of families and a lot of cases similar to this you've seen loss in the courtroom yeah and i love the questions you asked and the fact that you asked that question was awesome especially leaving it open-ended like that when you see amber heard leave that back door the courthouse now this is back behind the courthouse that's a gated area where the cars come and pick them up and you see her walk out and whitney's walking there with her whitney's walking side by side kind of giving a sideways glance sees how amber is whether she's going backseat or front seat amber goes back seat and then as whitney whitney's getting into the car you see a really deliberate motion with um amber's or not amber whitney's hand going to her phone i felt confident in saying that that was a deliberate motion i'm not the expert um you've seen all of this stuff you're a lot better picking up on the smaller things than i am did you have any takes on that yeah so first of all thank you for that and i that's the thing i think a lot of people sometimes don't realize about my experience where like my knowledge didn't come from books it came from being out there on stages and part of what i do as a mentalist i pick up on these details and i look at the small sort of nuances of how people do things and then it allows me to know what they're thinking or what they're about to do and that's literally been my career think of one of the letters let me start with that focus on one of the letters oh it's a weird one it's not a common one w you know what you're thinking yes it is and you never you never said that i never said that no no and i'm perfectly honest everything like you described about me was very accurate like very true it was like weird how i think there was a subtlety that a lot of people missed and i'm really with you on this now can this be simply a gesture of her moving her phone out of the way because she's about to sit in a car and that could be uncomfortable it could be that but there's a reason that i personally don't think it is and here's what it is the word use is perfect deliberate motion something with thought behind it so when we see your hands shoot back if this was just something out of comfort something you're moving out of your way there's an obstacle that has less thought it has less deliberate motion so what we do is we want to move something out of the way we grab it we move it out of the way when we saw our hands shoot back into our pocket we see her get the phone she has a good grip on it from both sides she's got the phone it's unquestionable but then she adjusts her grip not just once but twice her hand slides down the side she grabs it again then again and her hand quickly swings back around all the way around so this isn't it's not consistent with what i would expect to see with someone just grabbing something moving it out of the way so yeah not only do i agree but i spoke with someone that we both know is a massive expert in this field chase hughes who literally wrote the best-selling books in the world on behavior analysis and he actually made a great point which was about the speed at which the arm swung around once she had the phone he thinks that the phone is something that brings her comfort so whether whether she's gonna look at it take a look look at her text send the text go on social media which is something by the way we know that they both do whitney and amber like to go on social media and see what's up and post and react so whether it's that he says that that the speed at which that arm swung around indicates that this isn't just a sort of thoughtless i'm putting this aside but re-grip swing around she wants that phone again it could just be that she's moving out of the way but to me and chase and it seems like you as well it seems more consistent with i want my phone and i freaking love that because you just picked up on what i was going to ask you next which is i wondered if that was a uh a comfort animal like uh like i needed to distract i knew i was getting in this car and i needed that in front of me and you just hit it like right on the head yeah i think either it's comfort or she needs to be on it there's some desire to be on that phone in that moment that you just you just feel by that deliberate emotion but the comfort part awesome awesome take by you and chase what would you say rob and i quite paid a lot of attention to this as well what would you say was happening in the vibe between the two sisters as they were walking out and how is it different from other cases that you've seen it's tough it's tough because what you're seeing when they walk out that's that's a good five to ten minute separation from when they were in the room and we don't know how they acted when they were in that back room together whether there was consoling that happened back there but when they're walking out of there they're both walking very deliberately i mean that is that isn't just a walk that's a stride i mean they are they are moving and what i took most out of that was whitney with her head movements looking at amber she was taking amber amber was in charge in that moment and there was no question about it whitney is doing the double take whitney's seeing where amber's going even though not making any overt gestures there something about it just showed me that amber was really mad or upset there was a lot of emotion coming out and whitney was trying to be reactive to that so i i don't want to say that they weren't giving all that consolation in the background they might very well have been but in that very moment whitney's sole focus was on where's amber getting and then i need to get in this car love that love that balance sort of not jumping on the obvious train thing i do love that and again what you said is perfect we don't know what was going on in that room we also don't know what's going on in the car as soon as those doors are closed they're out there they know there's cameras they could just be rushing to get in this car you know we often do that when we go want to go from point a to point b the only goal is to get in that car i do see um in this case amber moore as the leader and whitney moore as the follower i think that's just their dynamic we do see somebody else in the back seat so that could have been whitney's queue to be like i will leave amber with whoever that is which we could speculate on that quite a bit more um i think that regardless of whether there's one more person in that big car a very close sibling like i'm thinking of my girlfriend and her sister i'm thinking my mom and her sister they would still go in that back seat with their siblings but you can't apply a standard like that to every relationship and expect them to live up to it but in that walk over it seemed to me like their energies were not that connected and it was two separate people saying to themselves we got to get in this car right now so there was quite a lot of stuff we went through there some great stuff with ben chu and camille vasquez a great discussion with rob from line lumber by the way i will leave a link to his channel in the description make sure to give him a follow he's putting out some awesome videos and let me know in the comments what you thought of this what did you think of camille vazquez and ben chu with these interviews what vibes were you getting hope you enjoyed it i will see you on the next one

Channel: The Behavioral Arts

Views: 1,940,843

Keywords:

Id: opz95itYEA0

Length: 39min 39sec (2379 seconds)

Published: Sat Jun 11 2022