But it doesn't work that way. This concept isn't that hard to understand. You cannot, with any degree of accuracy, "test" a lie detector under false pretenses. The McCann's would have to be subject to a reward vs punishment in order for the physiological reactions to be genuine.
If the test isn't going to be released and essentially no one will know about it, they should be able to pass it with NO PROBLEM. Easy. Sitting in a small dark room being hammered for over an hour by a police sponsored forensic polygraph examiner would be entirely different than a mock set up test run.
Clearly you have no idea how this works.
Any lie, under any circumstances will get a reaction the machine can detect as long as the person is not mentally ill or under the effect of drugs.
Then just admit it. That is a f cking stupid idea, TJ. You can't test a lie detector. No way. Their lawyer would scoff at the notion of thinking if they passed a mock set-up, then that means they could pass the real deal. If you were right then that would mean that one could literally practice to beat a lie detector, and that is utter nonsense.
Again, you know nothing about how these machines work, reactions to telling a lie are involuntary. Yes, more pressure will add a greater reaction, but the reaction is there anywhere.
Far less accurate than those ******* sniffing dogs you were trying to say are 100% accurate. You place your faith in foolish ideals. Junk science and *** licking mutts are obviously things by which you stand firm. This is quite telling.
I believe in a maching seeing a reaction in temperature, resperation, pulse, muscle tension, etc... over a person who can make their mouth say anything. I also believe in a dog responding to certain things over the same mouth saying whatever lie is handy. Machines and dogs know nothing about the lies of man, they just do what their trained and designed to do, they allow men to play the games.
I did not insult you, don't insult me please.
Lets say you park your bike outside of a convenience store and go in to buy some smokes. You come out and your bike is gone. Can you not safely assume your bike was stolen? No witnesses. No evidence. You were irresponsible and stupid to leave your bike out there like that without a lock. But even under all these circumstances, it is pretty obvious that someone stole you bike.
First of all I am very dissapointed in you reducing the life of a child to mean nothing more than a bike sitting on a sidewalk unattended, very dissapointed.
Our children are more important than a bike or a car but people like you try to devalue life and make rediclious comparisons like this to make excuses for those who kill, or cause death and get them little or no punnishment.
Let's instead say you went to a strange Country and at a place where everyone is paranoid of fire erupting from nowhere you leave your tiny children unattended and later claim people kidnapped your child from that place you left them unattended and unwatched.
There is no evidence of an intruder and many areas of your story does not add up under scruitiny. You first agree to a lie detector but later refuse, and there is evidence of a possible killing.
This is what happened, and it seems very fishy to me, no matter how much you try to justify their actions. All statistics agree that parents and close family are most likely in crimes involving children.
A lie detector test could allow the investigators to feel safe dropping their attention away from the parents but the parents refuse "after" first agreeing to do it, something happened to change their mind, and it was "after" they had plenty of time to take a private test and see if they could pass it.
No "innocent" parent would refuse to put more attention on other directions if they had it in their power.
The evidence keeps piling up against them, I'm sorry Jhony, but there is absolutely nothing that points at anyone but the parents in this case, it is depressing to say that, but wishing a stranger did this does not make it true.
