'It's an Oscar-winning performance': Experts reveal the six tell-tale signs that told police infamous road rage killer Tracie Andrews was FAKING her tearful press conference hours after stabbing her fiance to death

[*]Tracie Andrews, 46, stabbed fiance Lee Harvey to death in a 1996 attack
[*]She claimed he was murdered by a road rage killer in a tearful press conference
[*]Criminal experts have analysed the video footage in a new documentary 
[*]They reveal how her body language and speech reveal her public deception 
[*]Andrews gave away six separate signs of deception during the conference when she said: 'I just tried to stop the bleeding really' 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4812874/How-killer-Tracie-Andrews-tried-deceive-public.html#ixzz4qgv2lclG 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

cant believe this is so long ago. i remember watching that press conference and my hubby turned to me and just said ''she did it''.

my sons girlfriend studies body language and has an amazing natural knowledge of people anyway. she's very perceptive

it's fascinating all the little things our bodies to on a sub conscious level

Wow me to Gel, over 20 years ago!

I remember this clearly, she looked real, but I wasn't sure.

Same as that couple who set their house alight murdering their kids, they looked as guilty as hell, so fake.

So why didn't they use this 'evidence' at the trial? It's all very well in hindsight.

An interesting case. I wonder if she might have got away with manslaughter or even self defence if she hadn't made up that story.

It's not likely that the knife belonged to her - it was allegedly a pen knife or a Swiss Army knife, and it was probably his knife. Did she know he kept it in the car, or was she telling the truth when she said it was self defence and she got the knife off him? The problem with that was that there was at least one stab wound in his back.

How did she get the bruises on her face?

She has just married her bouncer boyfriend. She looks almost unrecognisable from the woman who was jailed for murder 21 years ago.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/road-rage-murderer-tracie-andrews-11054537

As soon as I saw her on TV I knew without a doubt she was guilty. She looked guilty and I could tell she was lying. Plus her story didn't sound likely either.

I thought she was lying too, and I'm usually hopeless at not believing people... her eyes were hard and hateful.

Syl wrote:I thought she was lying too, and I'm usually hopeless at not believing people... her eyes were hard and hateful.

It was her story too. It just held too many questions.

It's very strange because it was clearly a crime of passion, and yet she was able to act very well and come up with that story very quickly.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's very strange because it was clearly a crime of passion, and yet she was able to act very well and come up with that story very quickly.

Would you call that a crime of passion?
She had form for attacking her previous boyfriends, and her and the man she killed had a very tempestuous relationship I'm not sure it would have been classed as a crime of passion....even in countries where that can be used as defence.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's very strange because it was clearly a crime of passion, and yet she was able to act very well and come up with that story very quickly.

Would you call that a crime of passion?
She had form for attacking her previous boyfriends, and her and the man she killed had a very tempestuous relationship I'm not sure it would have been classed as a crime of passion....even in countries where that can be used as  defence.

Yes I would - she clearly had a temper and they'd been arguing about something. As I said, how did she get those bruises, and who did the knife belong to? Do you think it was premeditated?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Would you call that a crime of passion?
She had form for attacking her previous boyfriends, and her and the man she killed had a very tempestuous relationship I'm not sure it would have been classed as a crime of passion....even in countries where that can be used as  defence.

Yes I would - she clearly had a temper and they'd been arguing about something. As I said, how did she get those bruises, and who did the knife belong to? Do you think it was premeditated?

Were her bruises not self inflicted?
I don't think the crime was premeditated at all....I think she was a woman with intense anger issues and she lost it.
She managed to concoct a story very quickly, hiding the murder weapon in her boot and trying to dispose of it later, which makes her a very scheming woman rather than a passionate one imo.

I cant remember who owned the knife or where she got it from.

The dead man is unable to tell his side of the story...


Which leaves only her story... but this should not be taken as being an honest and true version of events just because it is the only story there is available... and should not be taken as more believable because she is a woman...


It is entirely possible that she could have started attacking the man and that she was already armed with the knife... and any injuries she received were a result of him trying to defend himself and fight her off...!?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes I would - she clearly had a temper and they'd been arguing about something. As I said, how did she get those bruises, and who did the knife belong to? Do you think it was premeditated?

Were her bruises not self inflicted?
I don't think the crime was premeditated at all....I think she was a woman with intense anger issues and she lost it.
She managed to concoct a story very quickly, hiding the murder weapon in her boot and trying to dispose of it later, which makes her a very scheming woman rather than a passionate one imo.

I cant remember who owned the knife or where she got it from.

I read that it was his knife. She didn't seem like the sort of woman to carry a knife like that around. I don't know about the bruises - perhaps they did have a physical fight. It wouldn't have been the first time. The way she lied was terrible, and of course nobody was going to believe anything she said after that.

She had blood spatter inside her boots. She stabbed him whilst he was defenceless. I think I saw a documentary on it perhaps and it seemed to be premeditated because of the route she made him take.
In any case, the blood inside her boots told police she had stabbed him.

eddie wrote:She had blood spatter inside her boots. She stabbed him whilst he was defenceless. I think I saw a documentary on it perhaps and it seemed to be premeditated because of the route she made him take.
In any case, the blood inside her boots told police she had stabbed him.

I'm not disputing that she stabbed him. I'll have to look into the route they took. They nearly missed the right turning apparently, and there was a witness who said there was no other car around.

She stabbed him over 30 times, at least one of the wounds was in his back, that doesn't seem like self defence to me.
It sounds like she totally lost it and meant to severely damage him....not stop him from attacking her, which is what she eventually claimed.


Should her name and identity, plus her new husband and the area in which they live have been made public now?

Are you saying that she is married to a bloke who has no idea about what she did...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Are you saying that she is married to a bloke who has no idea about what she did...?

According to the newspapers he knows, but should her new name and her whereabouts, her new husbands name etc, be in the papers now after she has served her time?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4825452/Murderer-Tracie-Andrews-steps-new-husband.html

Syl wrote:She stabbed him over 30 times, at least one of the wounds was in his back, that doesn't seem like self defence to me.
It sounds like she totally lost it and meant to severely damage him....not stop him from attacking her, which is what she eventually claimed.


Should her name and identity, plus her new husband and the area in which they live have been made public now?

It seems like a case of total rage - a crime of passion. I don't think it was premeditated though. I can't see anyone trying to harm her now tbh, and her husband knows all about her past. Lee's family hate her of course, which is totally understandable. His daughter has spoken out, but I don't know what happened to her own daughter.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:She stabbed him over 30 times, at least one of the wounds was in his back, that doesn't seem like self defence to me.
It sounds like she totally lost it and meant to severely damage him....not stop him from attacking her, which is what she eventually claimed.


Should her name and identity, plus her new husband and the area in which they live have been made public now?

It seems like a case of total rage - a crime of passion. I don't think it was premeditated though. I can't see anyone trying to harm her now tbh, and her husband knows all about her past. Lee's family hate her of course, which is totally understandable. His daughter has spoken out, but I don't know what happened to her own daughter.

I wondered what had happened to her own daughter, hopefully she wont be named in the papers if she doesn't want to be.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Are you saying that she is married to a bloke who has no idea about what she did...?

According to the newspapers he knows, but should her new name and her whereabouts, her new husbands name  etc, be in the papers now after she has served her time?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4825452/Murderer-Tracie-Andrews-steps-new-husband.html

Depends on why it is deemed as 'news' in the first place...


I think the public have a right to know when dangerous convicts are released into society... and a right to know how many years in prison a 'life sentence' convict actually serves, when 'life sentence' was originally brought in to mean 'rest of life' inside, instead of getting 'death penalty'...!


As this case again raises the question of why a convicted murderer is allowed out of prison after a few years, and able to carry on with having a nice and enjoyable life etc... when the victim is still dead after having their life cut short by being brutally murdered by them...!?


I mean... let's face it... what should really happen, if it was possible, is that the victim was resurrected from death and given the 2nd chance of life, and the murderer was put to death...!


Not the murderer enjoying a 2nd chance of a happy free life, while the victim is still dead...!!!

A life sentence seldom means life.
Its an insult to the victims families when the person who murdered their loved one is out, still young enough to enjoy life, unfortunately thats how the law in this country works now.

I just wonder who it helps to know where that person is, what they look like, who they have married etc.....i should think it makes it harder for the families who have lost their loved ones.

Syl wrote:A life sentence seldom means life.
Its an insult to the victims families when the person who murdered their loved one is out, still young enough to enjoy life, unfortunately thats how the law in this country works now.

I just wonder who it helps to know where that person is, what they look like, who they have married etc.....i should think it makes it harder for the families who have lost their loved ones.

Denise Fergus wants to know all about Venables and Thompson. She thinks that will make her feel better I guess.

Syl wrote:A life sentence seldom means life.
Its an insult to the victims families when the person who murdered their loved one is out, still young enough to enjoy life, unfortunately thats how the law in this country works now.

I just wonder who it helps to know where that person is, what they look like, who they have married etc.....i should think it makes it harder for the families who have lost their loved ones.

It always strikes me as grossly unfair that this type of person is swanning around living their life etc, when the person they murdered is gone and the family of the murdered person is stuck with the real life sentence.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:A life sentence seldom means life.
Its an insult to the victims families when the person who murdered their loved one is out, still young enough to enjoy life, unfortunately thats how the law in this country works now.

I just wonder who it helps to know where that person is, what they look like, who they have married etc.....i should think it makes it harder for the families who have lost their loved ones.

It always strikes me as grossly unfair that this type of person is swanning around living their life etc, when the person they murdered is gone and the family of the murdered person is stuck with the real life sentence.

Totally agree Horatio.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:A life sentence seldom means life.
Its an insult to the victims families when the person who murdered their loved one is out, still young enough to enjoy life, unfortunately thats how the law in this country works now.

I just wonder who it helps to know where that person is, what they look like, who they have married etc.....i should think it makes it harder for the families who have lost their loved ones.

It always strikes me as grossly unfair that this type of person is swanning around living their life etc, when the person they murdered is gone and the family of the murdered person is stuck with the real life sentence.

That's why I wonder if the press are right to track down these murderers  once they are freed and divulge where they are, who they marry, what their lives are like now...they have a life, the person they murdered has not.
It must be like a dagger in the heart to the victims family.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It always strikes me as grossly unfair that this type of person is swanning around living their life etc, when the person they murdered is gone and the family of the murdered person is stuck with the real life sentence.

That's why I wonder if the press are right to track down these murderers  once they are freed and divulge where they are, who they marry, what their lives are like now...they have a life, the person they murdered has not.
It must be like a dagger in the heart to the victims family.

I don't think it helps anyone to track down these killers. It won't bring their victims back. But I don't think killers should be freed anyway. Life should mean life.

Miffs2 wrote:

Syl wrote:


That's why I wonder if the press are right to track down these murderers  once they are freed and divulge where they are, who they marry, what their lives are like now...they have a life, the person they murdered has not.
It must be like a dagger in the heart to the victims family.

I don't think it helps anyone to track down these killers. It won't bring their victims back. But I don't think killers should be freed anyway. Life should mean life.

I agree.
If the sentence is life that's what they should serve...if its 14 years that's what they should serve.

People say there is no incentive to behave if a prisoner wont get out earlier...so perhaps the incentives should be the privileges they receive whilst they are in there.

Thorin wrote:[*]Tracie Andrews, 46, stabbed fiance Lee Harvey to death in a 1996 attack
[*]She claimed he was murdered by a road rage killer in a tearful press conference
[*]Criminal experts have analysed the video footage in a new documentary 
[*]They reveal how her body language and speech reveal her public deception 
[*]Andrews gave away six separate signs of deception during the conference when she said: 'I just tried to stop the bleeding really' 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4812874/How-killer-Tracie-Andrews-tried-deceive-public.html#ixzz4qgv2lclG 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A psychological assessment made from the vantage point of hindsight is worth nothing.
Nailing this killer thru that tiny smudge inside her boots was a stroke of PURE GENIUS!
Forensic evidence will always be stronger than psychology & psychobabble.

The trouble with some of these killers who appear at press conferences trying to look innocent is the way they sometimes deflect the blame on to others.


Issuing a bogus description of an imaginary attacker means that anyone fitting that description will be harassed and put thru a terrible ordeal.

1. Amanda Knox was found innocent of murder Meredith Kercher but she spitefully put an innocent man in jail by blaming him, to deflect attention from her. She did time for that slander, plus the man rightfully sued her afterwards.


2. Finally there was another vile woman who murdered her own two  kids by pushing her car (with the kids inside) into a river, drowning them, then made up a cock&bull story that an ethnic guy had done it. The whole ethnic community was harassed. Later she gave a full confession, when told her story failed to add up. The woman is Susan Smith, from S.Carolina and she looks like butter wouldn't melt ....

In addition to the case mentioned in the OP, I feel that those two examples I've given are also interesting ones for studying the body language of people who lie at press conferences,

Worst press conference I ever saw was the Philpotts. You didn't need to be an expert in anything to see they were lying through their teeth.

Miffs2 wrote:Worst press conference I ever saw was the Philpotts. You didn't need to be an expert in anything to see they were lying through their teeth.

Looking back you are 100% right. At the time I remember arguing on a forum that they could be telling the truth, and all the people who were blaming them could be compounding their misery.

I was wrong....everyone else was right.

Syl wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Worst press conference I ever saw was the Philpotts. You didn't need to be an expert in anything to see they were lying through their teeth.

Looking back you are 100% right. At the time I remember arguing on a forum that they could be telling the truth, and all the people who were blaming them could be compounding their misery.

I was wrong....everyone else was right.

I imagine there might be a few more of these people that come to light eventually.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Looking back you are 100% right. At the time I remember arguing on a forum that they could be telling the truth, and all the people who were blaming them could be compounding their misery.

I was wrong....everyone else was right.

I imagine there might  be  a few more of these people that come to light eventually.  

I don't doubt it.
But with body language, people can act differently, so I don't think there are always tell tale signs that someone is being untruthful, there may be indications someone is lying, but they are certainly not proof.

Remember the Australian woman Lindy Chamberlain who was jailed for killing her baby daughter? She claimed a dingo had taken her baby, but came across as cold and unmoved, which probably persuaded the jury she was guilty...evidence came to light years later that she had probably been telling the truth.

Body language can work both ways...for or against.

Miffs2 wrote:Worst press conference I ever saw was the Philpotts. You didn't need to be an expert in anything to see they were lying through their teeth.

The worst one I saw was that chap who killed his wife, Gordon Wardell. He turned up in a wheelchair and was really not very convincing. I think he described his wife as hard working, which I thought was a bit odd when he could have said other things.

Jules wrote:The trouble with some of these killers who appear at press conferences trying to look innocent is the way they sometimes deflect the blame on to others.


Issuing a bogus description of an imaginary attacker means that anyone fitting that description will be harassed and put thru a terrible ordeal.

1. Amanda Knox was found innocent of murder Meredith Kercher but she spitefully put an innocent man in jail by blaming him, to deflect attention from her. She did time for that slander, plus the man rightfully sued her afterwards.


2. Finally there was another vile woman who murdered her own two  kids by pushing  her car (with the kids inside) into a river, drowning them, then made up a cock&bull story that an ethnic guy had done it. The whole ethnic community was harassed. Later she gave a full confession, when told her story failed to add up. The woman is Susan Smith, from S.Carolina and she looks like butter wouldn't melt ....

Knox was found guilty twice... and is still thought to have been involved...


https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2015/09/15/final-italian-supreme-court-ruling-amanda-knox-had-blood-on-her-hands/

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:The trouble with some of these killers who appear at press conferences trying to look innocent is the way they sometimes deflect the blame on to others.


Issuing a bogus description of an imaginary attacker means that anyone fitting that description will be harassed and put thru a terrible ordeal.

1. Amanda Knox was found innocent of murder Meredith Kercher but she spitefully put an innocent man in jail by blaming him, to deflect attention from her. She did time for that slander, plus the man rightfully sued her afterwards.


2. Finally there was another vile woman who murdered her own two  kids by pushing  her car (with the kids inside) into a river, drowning them, then made up a cock&bull story that an ethnic guy had done it. The whole ethnic community was harassed. Later she gave a full confession, when told her story failed to add up. The woman is Susan Smith, from S.Carolina and she looks like butter wouldn't melt ....

Knox was found guilty twice... and is still thought to have been involved...


https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2015/09/15/final-italian-supreme-court-ruling-amanda-knox-had-blood-on-her-hands/

She was acquitted in the end though. There really didn't seem to be much evidence against her, and there was no motive.

Apart from all the evidence against her...


And the fact she said she was there when it happened...


And the faked break in...


And the DNA evidence...


And her constant lies and changing of story...

Tommy Monk wrote:Apart from all the evidence against her...


And the fact she said she was there when it happened...


And the faked break in...


And the DNA evidence...


And her constant lies and changing of story...

What was her motive exactly?

The murder was seually motivated...

Tommy Monk wrote:The murder was seually motivated...

Amanda Knox isn't gay. Guede was there, and he was convicted. I don't see why there had to be more than one person there.

Guede conviction was based on court finding that there was more than one attacker... likely three court said...!


Nothing to do with her being gay or not... although she did have a relationship with a woman while in prison...

Tommy Monk wrote:Guede conviction was based on court finding that there was more than one attacker... likely three court said...!


Nothing to do with her being gay or not... although she did have a relationship with a woman while in prison...

Yes, but they didn't really say how they came to that conclusion.

She only got off on technicalities... and highly questionable ones at that...