Ode to the Cheek Pinch

Fullscreen capture 20180703 204802

The cheek pinch is a weird one. It resembles a sucking in of the cheeks, but it’s not. It also resembles pulling in the lower lip and pushing it against the upper lip towards the nostrils to create a sort of upside down coathangar shape to the mouth. It’s not that either.

What it is – when it matters – is that the cheek muscles are forcibly clamped down on the smile muscles, as they begin to exert an involuntary tug and lift on the corners of the mouth. The reason it’s used in true crime is to stop the criminal from smiling, especially when a smile is completely inappropriate to the question. The crushed cheek expression often helps the suspect appear more serious, stoic and unemotional than they are.

Here’s an example from a Ted Talk referencing the infamous Diane Downs. Watch until 15:52.

Here’s another example of what happens when the cheek pink fails to engage. Have a look at the corners of Knox’s lips, and how quickly and easily they tilt upwards.

The example below from an interview with Diane Sawyer has Knox in a more somber mood. She has to be, because Sawyer is a woman, and Sawyer is taking her there, addressing her morals as another woman. In this instance we see a few cheek pinches, and then one more immediately followed by a telling smile.

Sometimes a smile can build up but it can be held back. Sometimes it can’t. Repeated cheek pinches can also be a sign of giddy anxiety from a potential suspect. A particular psychology is at work. It’s activated in their minds. And extended exposure to an idea of themselves can be amusing, especially if there’s more to tell and the public can’t know.

So is the cheek pinch a smoking gun? Like so many things in true crime, when smoke forms part of a pattern, where there’s smoke there’s usually fire. A cheek pinch doesn’t mean guilty of murder necessarily but it can reveal deception at a telling juncture.

That said, the cheek pinch is idiosyncratic. Some, during interviews and in court, use it all the time, almost like a default fall-back expression. Some almost never use it.

Sometimes it’s used almost automatically by ordinary folk to express pique, or small levels of irritation or impatience. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

The cheek pinch is specifically useful as a true crime clue when tactical or direct questions are asked, questions with huge and telling implications. And because of this, the cheeks are used to clamp down on a smile that’s trying to leak through. It’s trying to hide the fact that I’m wanting to smile…I’m trying not to smile. See, I know something important but I’d rather not say what it is…and that’s amusing to me.

That amusement may seem so-what, but it’s actually a potential indicator of sadism. Where there’s elevated sadism there’s almost always murder.

By stretching the lips, which is what the cheek pinch does, they suck in the lips which tilts the edges down. This can neutralize an involuntary smile muscle that’s starting to engage.

Fullscreen capture 20180703 204809

Through the course of studying dozens of high-profile cases in meticulous detail, I’ve not paid that much attention to the cheek pinch. That changed when I attended the Rohde trial. When I encountered the accused [accused of murdering his wife, he claims she committed suicide by hanging herself from a hook inside a hotel bathroom while he was sleeping in the same room] in court, I was surprised by how expressive he was in court. When he was on the stand facing questions, he shrugged constantly. A single response sometimes caused him to shrug several times every few seconds.

Besides the shrugging, Rohde did the cheek pinch to excess. Now in Rohde’s case the cheek pinch is closer to a sneer than clamping down on a smile. It’s almost a contemptuous response to something that he could never possibly know. Clearly Jason Rohde’s not always trying to stifle a smile, so what is he trying to do?

In court [the case is still sub judiceRohde’s admitted to being a liar, and to lying often. He’s said, shrugging, that he may be a liar but that doesn’t make him a murderer.

True, but murderers need to a lie a lot, and their lives are lies. To view a brief illustration of some of Rohde’s ticks, visit this link.

The strange thing with Rohde is that he has a slew of microexpressions that are seemingly beyond his control. Even when he’s not on the stand he’s constantly blinking in a sort of pinched stutter – with his eyelids. These nervous twitches are not something you’d expect from a multimillionaire CEO. And what I noticed with them, he’d pinch his eyes when nothing was happening, but crucially, the pinch would invariably be there right when it did too.

Think of it as someone who stutters. They stutter when they’re nervous, but they stutter even more when their nervousness increases. Does that make sense?

Fullscreen capture 20180530 113918

Now obviously the cheek pinch isn’t necessarily a flag that only sits on the murderer’s cake. Any time in a true crime scenario, especially where witnesses are in court testifying about crucial information, you want to look out for the cheek pinch.

Some pinches may be incidental pique, but others might not be.

To test your ability to pick it up, watch the testimony below of Anthony Lazarro, Casey Anthony’s boyfriend at the time her daughter Caylee disappeared and died. A lot of the questions are neither here nor there. Lazarro happens to be very expressive too. Perhaps because of his youth he’s not that great at camouflaging his emotions. The clip below starts at the moment in the testimony he starts to do cheek pinching to excess.

QUESTION: Did she ever talk with any specificity about say, what the babysitter’s name way?

LAZARRO [Glances upward for inspiration]: Uh…at that point it was…Zanny [cheek pinch].

Lazarro keeps his cheeks pinched for a few more seconds until he’s asked a follow-up question.

QUESTION: Did she tell you where Zanny lived?

LAZARRO: No. [The cheek pinch is back with a vengeance now].

QUESTION: Did she tell you if Zanny had any relatives?

Now Lazarro’s got his cheeks pinched in permanently, even when he answers. So they’re pinched in before the question, there’s an answer, and they’re still pinched in when he says “No”.

QUESTION: Did she tell you if Zanny cared for any other children?

He’s still got his cheeks pinched in.

There’s a slight pause, then one more.

QUESTION: Did she ever discuss, when you first met her, what she paid Zanny?

Here Lazarro sucks in his lips audibly, making a squishy kissing noise. The kissy lips look absurd under the circumstances. Anyway, he hunches up, shrugs and finally smiles as he says, “Don’t remember.”

fish-face

If there is something to the cheek pinch, this guy seems to be hiding something that has to do with a Nanny called Zanny. It’s funny to him, even though he’s sitting in court addressing accusations of murder towards his former questions. If he’s trying to stop himself from smiling, what’s he trying to hide, and why’s it funny?

 

Ode to the Tongue Flick

After covering a series of high-profile true crime cases, I’m ashamed to admit how long it’s taken to pick up on the tongue flick as a behavioural giveaway of some significance.

It was probably thanks to the LIVEFEED video in the Henri van Breda axe murder trial, that I actually began to really notice it. Because it happens so quickly, you tend to miss it in real time, or even in television coverage.

Since the LIVEFEED was immediately available on YouTube, I was able to go back and review what I thought I’d seen and heard in court, and that’s when a whole new world opened. Henri often lifted his hand just as his tongue poked out, or just as his lip would snarl. It was virtually impossible to catch this unless one slowed down the YouTube video and rewatched it again and again.

Then I noticed the same thing in the Rohde case. Then you start seeing just how often it comes up in true crime. When you realize it’s out there, it starts coming out of the woodwork. What you want to watch out for, besides the tongue flick itself, is the context within which it happens. What is being said, what idea is being brokered when the person flicks their tongue?

Below, John flicks his tongue as he’s congratulating himself about “the point at which justice comes into our system.” He’s referring to the Grand Jury system, and implying the Grand Jury voted not to indict the Ramseys, when in fact they had voted to indict. Watch the clip here.

Fullscreen capture 20180819 155612

In the screengrab below Patsy is explaining that the $100 000 is for the arrest and conviction of the killer of their daughter. If the killer was under age 10, then Colorado law wouldn’t even recognize the crime, so there could be no arrest or conviction, and so there was no way that reward could be paid out.

Patsy’s tongue flick happens as she says: “We feel there are at least two people on the face of this earth that know…” Uh-oh. Watch the clip here.

Fullscreen capture 20180819 160944

Burke’s tongue flick happens when Dr Phil is taking him through the morning when they discover JonBenet is missing. He describes Patsy coming into his room, and then a cop coming in and shining a flashlight [Burke pretends to be asleep]. When Dr Phil says: “It’s still dark when this happens…” Burke pokes out his tongue. Watch the moment here.

Fullscreen capture 20180819 160602

In the Madeleine McCann case, Gerry’s tongue flick happens immediately after he says: “Everything we’ve done is to increase the chances of her being returned.” Then he looks down, and the flick happens. Is that true? Is everything done to increase the chances of Madeleine being found and returned to them? Watch the clip here.

Fullscreen capture 20180819 163751

What prompted Scott Peterson’s tongue flick [below]? He says: “A lot of the questions are ‘how do you stay focused and keep working…?'” Does Scott mean the questions are about him continuing with his life almost as if nothing has happened? If so, part of the answer to that may be his affair with Amber Frey.

In the same interview he says “it [the affair, which by then was public knowledge because Amber had told the media] had nothing to with it…” and then “I had nothing to do with it.” Didn’t it?

Fullscreen capture 20180819 170749

Read the analysis on Chris Watts here. He does more than one tongue flick in his seven minute interview.

Fullscreen capture 20180818 110955

In the Rohde case, which is still sub judicae, Jason Rohde [accused of murdering his wife and staging it to look a suicide] not only flicks his tongue often, but shrugs constantly.

Fullscreen capture 20180530 112348

Henri van Breda was an excellent case to learn to catch the tongue flicks. Because of his laid-back demeanour on the stand, and his well-groomed and educated manner of answering questions, you tended to miss the tongue flicks entirely. Only when making a close study of the livefeed, watching snippets repeatedly, did you begin to notice the many times Henri would touch his face. Behind his hand you saw the tongue reflexively slipping out, and the lip curling, as if to hide a nervous smile or twitch of the upper lip.

Below is a rare screengrab where his face is not obscured by his hand, although his head is turned away from the camera slightly. On this occasion, the convicted triple axe murderer was asked to demonstrate – using a balsa wood prop of the axe – how the axe murderer bludgeoned his father while he [supposedly] watched from elsewhere in the room. According to Henri, the attacker laughed while raining axe blows on his father in particular. It may be that his hand isn’t blocking his face on this occasion because it’s holding the axe.

Watch the relevant clip here.

Fullscreen capture 20180219 161929

What’s the actual significance of the tongue flick? It could be several things. It could be the psychological idea of tucking into a good meal, in the sense that what’s being asked is something of immense value, but the suspect is determined not to give this information up. As a result, there’s a sense of relishing this delightful leverage, of knowing something someone else doesn’t.

It may also be to hide another microexpression, like a smile, or a nervous curling of the upper lip, and in this sense the tongue flick might be reflexive.

Often we associate a flicking tongue with a snake. Snakes flick their tongue, but that is done to smell. Human beings aren’t trying to smell when they flick their tongues, except that those questioning them are trying to intuit something. So in a sense, there is this psychological effort to perceive something, to smell something. The tongue flick intuits that on a primal level. The suspect is asked a series of questions which the suspect probably could offer a lot more information. This information is on the “tip of their tongue”, but there would be dire consequences if this information is simply volunteered.

Also, the suspect tends to know before he is asked what is being asked [or suspected] of him. So when the question is fielded, often on camera, there is a sense of savouring it, almost as one would a nice meal.

The tongue flick’s real value, as I’ve mentioned before, isn’t that it happens, but when it happens. Catch the tongue flick and then go back and see what prompts it, and a world of psychological possibilities is revealed, including the crown jewel in unsolved true crime cases: motive.

https://youtu.be/At1sAG66-j4