Maddy McCann

[Jhony5]

You have said time and again that every police officer over there are liers.

No. I said they will kick your ass if they get you in a dark room. I said "ALL POLICE ARE LIARS". It's part of standard investigation. You ever watch the docu-drama on the Discovery channel called The First 48? It is a real life documentary show where they follow real homicide detectives around for the first 48 hours of the investigation. A great show.

 

One of the most common tactics expressed in the show is to have a detective sit down, look the suspect in the eye and talk about having evidence (Fingerprints, DNA, Video) that they actually do not have.

 

This tactic is smart, often effective and I actually have no issue with it unless they use the media as a third party purveyor of lies. Thusly equating to slander.

 

This is what I meant by calling them liars, TJ. I wasn't trying to slander them. All detectives are liars. It's in the job description.

 

I bet you are both dead on, if they could gather more support with the lie detector, they would but being as they refuse, I agree with you two, that was already removed as an option.

 

Kate McCann has refused to take a lie detector test about her daughter Madeleine's disappearance, it was revealed yesterday.

 

She and husband Gerry had offered to undergo a polygraph examination in September, after they were made official suspects in the investigation.

 

But it has now emerged that they have refused an expert's offer to carry it out, because the results would not be admissible as evidence to a Portuguese court.

 

 

Inadmissible means it is a pointless exercise. As well, the tests are most fallible when concerning highly emotion subject matter, such as the death/disappearance of ones child. If they pass, they gain nothing from it. If they fail, they taint a possible future jury pool. It would be most unwise to agree to a lie detector test. I would never take one.

 

Fact is, the McCann's wanted to take the test in September, but the police wanted nothing to do with it. Now that the offer is being made by British agents, they are denying it because it is inadmissible. As well, they have likely researched lie detectors and have found out that they can backfire on the innocent.

 

Madeleine McCann's parents vow to take lie detector test - Liverpool Daily Post.co.uk

 

I ask you the same question, while we have questioned the integrity and truthfulness of two people, you have maligned hundreds of police, and all of us for even daring to offer our opinions on this subject.

Your opinions are valid and the discussion of the McCann's potential guilt doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the use of language such as "They are guilty as hell" and " They killed their daughter".

 

There simply is not enough indication to form such a strong opinion about something so horrid. Not enough "maybes" and too many "definitelys", if ya know what I'm saying.

 

I haven't said the McCann's are definitely not guilty. I am arguing that they cannot be proven guilty. Y'all are ready to hang the f ckers.

 

You gets my drift homeboy?

 

What will be your reaction if we are proven correct and all your personal attacks are proven to be wrong?

I haven't made any unwarranted personal attacks. I stated a case in which the Portuguese police beat the sh t out of a suspect. Something that 4 police were fired for. I also sighted deception as a police tactic in a murder investigation. All truths.

 

At least I wouldn't feel like a tool for slamming two innocent parents for murdering their child. Discuss it in an impartial manner and I wouldn't have to ask questions like that, TJ.

 

 

Did ya know that the rental car that garnered such a reaction from the cadaver dogs was used in the summer time to transport rotting meat, poultry and other meat butchering by-products?

 

The couple believe its use as a “dumper truck” ferrying rotting meat, chicken carcasses and food scraps to nearby bins during the summer could also explain the excited reaction of specialist sniffer dogs when shown the car last month as part of a review of the case.

 

Often there are very simple answers for even the most difficult questions.

[hugo]

Inadmissible means it is a pointless exercise. As well, the tests are most fallible when concerning highly emotion subject matter, such as the death/disappearance of ones child. If they pass, they gain nothing from it. If they fail, they taint a possible future jury pool. It would be most unwise to agree to a lie detector test. I would never take one.

 

 

Yep, unless you actually give a damn about your daughter and think finding her is more important than possibly tainting a jury pool. If you know you killed your daughter not much reason to take the test. This is what I would do under the same situation. I would tell my lawyer to arrange a test with a private firm and I would take it. Only if I failed would I refuse an ifficial test. They are guilty as hell.

[Jhony5]

Yep, unless you actually give a damn about your daughter and think finding her is more important than possibly tainting a jury pool. If you know you killed your daughter not much reason to take the test. This is what I would do under the same situation. I would tell my lawyer to arrange a test with a private firm and I would take it. Only if I failed would I refuse an ifficial test. They are guilty as hell.

 

So what happens if the test gives a false positive? How much does that help find her daughter?

 

Yep, that's what I thought. If this happens than everything is screwed up.

 

Also, lie detectors do not work if there is no fear of reprisal. You are wrong about that Hugo. In order to garner an authentic reaction (Sweat, tremors etc) there MUST BE an authentic fear of reprisal for lying.

 

Do you understand? Or does this logic escape you? If it does, then I will bother proving it too you. But you are an intelligent man so I will assume you understand.

[timesjoke]

I am sorry Jhony, but you are doing the exact same thing you claim we are doing, you want to slam and belittle all the police involved in this case without one shread of evidence against them but we are simply saying that these parents are at the minimum the prime suspects and are guilty of child endangerment that resulted in the death of their child.

 

 

The only evidence available (not much) points directly at them.

 

There is not one shread of evidence pointing to a stranger taking the child, so until that evidence shows up, I will continue to say the parents are the only ones who had the time and ability to make this body dissapear without a trace.

 

 

A child is dead because of the parents lack of giving a dude, if you cannot put any blame on these parents, then there is no real point in talking to you about this anymore.

 

 

These police are just like you and me, they are not monsters who make up charges against innocent people just to get their "rocks" off. They can only chase down clues that are there. Obviously they will put the majority of their attention tword the most likely suspects until a "reason" is discovered to stop considering the parents as the most likely suspects, passing lie detector tests could go a long way to letting the police feel confortable to put all their attention elsewhere.

 

 

 

Yep, unless you actually give a damn about your daughter and think finding her is more important than possibly tainting a jury pool. If you know you killed your daughter not much reason to take the test. This is what I would do under the same situation. I would tell my lawyer to arrange a test with a private firm and I would take it. Only if I failed would I refuse an ifficial test. They are guilty as hell.

 

I agree, clearly they thought they could fool a lie detector test, most likely with drugs (they are doctors) so they had a "test" done in private and discovered they could not pass it so changed their minds.

 

 

Most states in Amnerica do not allow the result of lie tests in court but that does not stop the innocent from taking the tests to clear their name with the investigators.

 

 

You see, it does not matter what is admissable in court because the test tells the investigators they are wasting their time on that person, it frees up time to chase other possibilities. Investigators may want to verify the test with their own examinor, but after that, there is no point wasting more time in a direction that cannot give results.

[Jhony5]

I agree, clearly they thought they could fool a lie detector test, most likely with drugs (they are doctors) so they had a "test" done in private and discovered they could not pass it so changed their minds.

lol.......

 

Lie detector tests CANNOT be "tested" like that. Why don't you understand that, TJ?

 

The tests measure responses triggered by fear of punishment. It is far easier to lie as a joke than it is to lie to a police officer during an interrogation in which your ass is on the line. Any Forensic Polygraph Examiner would laugh at the notion you and Hugo are batting back and forth. A polygraph doesn't read your mind as if by magic. It measures responses that can only be triggered under authentic circumstances.

 

Do you understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A child is dead because of the parents lack of giving a dude, if you cannot put any blame on these parents, then there is no real point in talking to you about this anymore.

I have blamed them. But blaming them for their incompetence does nothing to solve the mystery, does it?

[timesjoke]

lol.......

 

Lie detector tests CANNOT be "tested" like that. Why don't you understand that, TJ?

 

 

Are you telling me you cannot understand the concept of their lawyer getting an outside agency to conduct a private test to see how it goes?

 

There are many private groups out there who do tests on company employees to easily have a test performed ahead of time and be sure of what the result would be "before" you do it in an official capacity.

 

 

The tests measure responses triggered by fear of punishment. It is far easier to lie as a joke than it is to lie to a police officer during an interrogation in which your ass is on the line. Any Forensic Polygraph Examiner would laugh at the notion you and Hugo are batting back and forth. A polygraph doesn't read your mind as if by magic. It measures responses that can only be triggered under authentic circumstances.

 

Do you understand?

 

Are you kidding me?

 

I already posted my understanding of how it works in this thread and now you want to talk to me like a 5 year old?

 

I am fully understanding of how the detector works and can even use involuntary cues by people to do a test of my own without the machine. Those of us with the training can easily tell when the average person is telling lies.

 

 

Fear for telling a lie drives most people, it is that fear that causes the reactions. Many people try to use downers to fool the test or a sharp object in their show so they can cause themselves pain to fool the machine.

 

 

The point is, barring mental illness or other forms of manipulation on the test, it is a very accurate tool and if the parents could pass the test, then almost all the attention of investigators would be taken away.

 

 

Would any loving parent take the test to help get more attention put on other areas?

 

Only if their innocent.

 

 

 

I have blamed them. But blaming them for their incompetence does nothing to solve the mystery, does it?

 

Part of blaming them is punnishment.

 

They are 100% to blame for the death of their child, wither directly or indirectly because they did not give a amn for their childs safety.

 

 

 

Part of the mystery is solved, they are the only people who could have kept this child safe, and they refused to do that.

 

 

Unless some evidence comes along showing someone else was involved, the parents are also the only people (so far) who could have been responsible for this child's death. Either an accident or not, they are the only people with the time and ability to erase this child without a trace.

 

 

 

You keep saying what "might" have happened, and who "could" have done something but in reality, we cannot look at things as possible without some evidence to back your assumptions up.

 

There is nothing to lead investigators away from the parents (so far) but again, the parents both passing a lie detector test would definately give the investigators a good reason to look elsewhere, too bad the parents refuse to give that good reason to the investigators.

[Jhony5]

Are you telling me you cannot understand the concept of their lawyer getting an outside agency to conduct a private test to see how it goes?

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.

 

 

Are you kidding me?

 

I already posted my understanding of how it works in this thread and now you want to talk to me like a 5 year old?

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.

 

The point is, barring mental illness or other forms of manipulation on the test, it is a very accurate tool and if the parents could pass the test, then almost all the attention of investigators would be taken away.

Far less accurate than those asshole sniffing dogs you were trying to say are 100% accurate. You place your faith in foolish ideals. Junk science and ass licking mutts are obviously things by which you stand firm. This is quite telling.

 

That's retarded, TJ.

 

You keep saying what "might" have happened, and who "could" have done something but in reality, we cannot look at things as possible without some evidence to back your assumptions up.

Thats absurd.

 

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.

[timesjoke]

 

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 asshole sniffing dogs you were trying to say are 100% accurate. You place your faith in foolish ideals. Junk science and ass 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.

 

 

That's retarded, TJ.

 

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.

[hugo]

So what happens if the test gives a false positive? How much does that help find her daughter?

 

Yep, that's what I thought. If this happens than everything is screwed up.

 

Also, lie detectors do not work if there is no fear of reprisal. You are wrong about that Hugo. In order to garner an authentic reaction (Sweat, tremors etc) there MUST BE an authentic fear of reprisal for lying.

 

Do you understand? Or does this logic escape you? If it does, then I will bother proving it too you. But you are an intelligent man so I will assume you understand.

 

FALSE, TRY REMOVING YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ASS. LAWYERS TEST THEIR OWN CLIENTS ALL THE TIME. THE ACT OF LYING PRODUCES PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS. In fact, testers are usually asked to lie deliberately on certain questions in order to establish a baseline.

 

Any innocent parent would take the lie detector test. An innocent parent would not be using money given to find their daughter for personal expenses. They are guilty as hell. The other two children should be immediately removed from the custody of those two inhuman demons.

[Jhony5]

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.

 

Respectfully TJ, you are not getting the point of what I said. You insinuated that the lack of evidence toward an intruder signifies that there was no intruder. My analogy provides you a stunning example of why you are incorrect. I am not likening a child to a bicycle. Please do not dumb it down to that level.

 

You did not address the inherent proposition I laid out;

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' date=' [u']it is pretty obvious that someone stole you bike[/u"].

This equates well to the McCann case and the issue you are tauting. That the lack of evidence to indicate an intruder has taken the child somehow means an intruder could not have taken the child. There is evidence;

1) A missing child.

2) Open windows and two unlocked doors.

 

Your statements are in a like context as the old clich?; "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound"? The answer is yes.

 

 

FALSE, TRY REMOVING YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ASS. LAWYERS TEST THEIR OWN CLIENTS ALL THE TIME. THE ACT OF LYING PRODUCES PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS. In fact, testers are usually asked to lie deliberately on certain questions in order to establish a baseline.

Jeez Hugo, calm it down a notch, aye?

 

NPR : Foolproof Test for Catching Liars Still Elusive

The problem with the polygraph — in essence, it is more of an anxiety detector than an instrument that measures lying.

 

Herein lies the rub. While the polygraph can show when someone gets anxious, it can't say definitively what is triggering their anxiety. Critics of the machine say it is as much about intimidation as it is about not telling the truth.

 

In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences decided to put the machine to the test. Its conclusion: When the polygraph was used to investigate a specific incident, it performed "well above chance though well below perfection." It was hardly a ringing endorsement. The problem, the NAS report said, was that while the physical manifestations often associated with lying could be measured by the polygraph, the very same problems — increased heart rate, skyrocketing blood pressure and sweaty palms — could happen in the absence of a lie as well.

 

"Many other psychological and physiological factors (such as anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses," the report said. "Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results."

Lots to extrapolate from this, and this is not my "mouth" running TJ. It is well known that lie detectors are faulty. It is also well known that you cannot rehearse for a lie detector session.

 

A lie detector measures anxiety. If the circumstances are disingenuous and there is no fear of reprisal for being caught, the anxiety will not be as high, or even present at all. Thusly, the results from a mock run will be inconsequential.

 

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.

I know exactly how they work. It is basic stuff. And your above post is a backhanded way of agreeing with me. If the circumstance of the test is not genuine, then the responses will not be genuine. If you do not fear being caught, then your involuntary reactions will be stifled.

 

I would be far more relaxed if my lawyer was, in essence, administering the test, as opposed to an official and documented test being administered under police supervision.

 

I did not insult you, don't insult me please.

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize if you took it that way. I only meant to convey that I find your appraisal of the authentication of mock tests to be biased and in full disregard of logic.

 

A lie detector test could allow the investigators to feel safe dropping their attention away from the parents

.....or it could backfire and provide a faulty response. Thusly stabbing to death any chance of the investigation leaning away from the innocent parties.

 

No "innocent" parent would refuse to put more attention on other directions if they had it in their power.

I would never take one. Ever. Even if my daughter was missing and I knew she had been taken. I would not take one. I do not believe that they are accurate enough to risk my ass and my daughters life that the test will be accurate. I am not the only one. I posted quotes from a non-bias group that scientifically measured their accuracy, and the appraisal was less than flattering.

 

Lets keep this debate civil guys. There are few debates ongoing on this board that are civil. No more cracks about statements being "retarded" and people having their "heads up thier ass".

 

Agreed?

[snafu]

I've taken a lie detector test before. They don't just rush into the test. They have you relax and settle down a bit. Then they have you lie and tell the truth like what your birthday is on purpose to calibrate the system (I know hugo mentioned this already). They only ask pertinent questions to the case. You are only to answer yes or no. Most times they let you see the questions in advance. They can also check your system for drugs. They're pretty damn infallible.

 

Oh yes, I passed my test.

[snafu]

Oh and they will ask you the same question in different ways. Like did you do it? Do you know who did it? Do you know who might have done part of it? Stuff like that.

[Jhony5]

I've taken a lie detector test before.........

 

 

 

........They're pretty damn infallible.

 

The best case scenario, as sited in a biased format by the institution that oversees polygraph examiners, is 98%. A figure that is hotly disputed as overly generous. But even if 98% is the case, this means if 100 people take the test, 2 will be incorrectly accessed. A proverbial roll of the dice.

 

I would not bet my freedom, my life or my reputation on a roll of the dice.

 

You guys keep ignoring the 500 pound (2%) gorilla tearing ass through your living room.

 

Keep on telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. It makes you guys seem quite biased as you fellas are disputing cold hard facts with poorly arranged anecdotal fallacies.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

In fact, testers are usually asked to lie deliberately on certain questions in order to establish a baseline..

 

Correct. I have read somewhere that the testee is required to lie three times. A white American middle aged man for example would be asked if he was a European then wether he was a black man, then wether he was a teenager, or some other such questions. He would answer yes o all three. The exercise shows that the subjects obvious lies are detectable by the aparatus, and that the aparaus clearly works.

 

However the aparatus can be fooled. Yu could for example cause yourself stress as you answer a question, hence giving the impression that you have jus lied. Bite your tongue hard, or squash a toe with your other foot under he table.

 

You would not do this when they ask- did you kill the kid ? You would already have given a stress positive to tha question, you would do it to other questions where you have no reason to lie, hence giving stress positives to most if not al questions. This points the finger at the equipment not working, rather than you being guilty .

 

Any innocent parent would take the lie detector test. QUOTE]

 

I agree. In addition to doing anything they could to help apprehend the killer, they should also be doing anything they could to clear themselves. This is what they must do if their intentions really are to assist the police. Instead, they are actively not helping the police. A damning thing to do if they really wished to bring this matter to a succesful conclusion.

[timesjoke]

 

Respectfully TJ, you are not getting the point of what I said. You insinuated that the lack of evidence toward an intruder signifies that there was no intruder. My analogy provides you a stunning example of why you are incorrect. I am not likening a child to a bicycle. Please do not dumb it down to that level.

 

No, it is you who is not getting the point, you are trying to make leaving your tiny children alone in a room where everyone is scared less of spontanious fire erupting without warning sound the same as leaving your nike unatended.

 

They are not the same and the level of responsibility cannot be matched, so your example cannot be considered to anyone with a brain.

 

 

You did not address the inherent proposition I laid out;

This equates well to the McCann case and the issue you are tauting. That the lack of evidence to indicate an intruder has taken the child somehow means an intruder could not have taken the child. There is evidence;

1) A missing child.

2) Open windows and two unlocked doors.

 

No, this is nothing like the mccain case, there is a monumental diffefence between the care and responsibility a parent should show for protecting their children from harm compared to caring for a bike.

 

 

 

You do not leave children in harms way if your a good parent.

 

Your statements are in a like context as the old clich?; "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound"? The answer is yes.

 

No, it is about responsibility. At the very least these parents had a responsibility to keep their defensiveless children safe. You said yourself everyone in that place thought it would explode into flame without notice, why would any parent leave children unattended in a situation liek that?

 

 

 

Lots to extrapolate from this, and this is not my "mouth" running TJ. It is well known that lie detectors are faulty. It is also well known that you cannot rehearse for a lie detector session.

 

Nope, there is plenty of evidence to show they are very accurate, as you said in another post, they are proven to be 98% accurate, the 2% you speak of are chalked up to things like tampering.

 

Bullets are not 100%. They are less then 75% effective to stop someone with one shot but they are still the best way to defend yourself.

 

 

The point I am making is would a geed parent take a 98% chance to help find their missing child?

 

Your damn right they would, my children are worth a 2% risk.

 

 

A lie detector measures anxiety. If the circumstances are disingenuous and there is no fear of reprisal for being caught, the anxiety will not be as high, or even present at all. Thusly, the results from a mock run will be inconsequential.

 

Wrong, the only thing that can make a test ineffective is certain mental conditions and drugs.

 

A trial run would be very effective for a guilty person because if they fail with the slightly lesser stress of a controled test, they are guranteed to fail during the real thing, and that has been my point from the start, your just pretending not to understand the concept.

 

 

I know exactly how they work. It is basic stuff. And your above post is a backhanded way of agreeing with me. If the circumstance of the test is not genuine, then the responses will not be genuine. If you do not fear being caught, then your involuntary reactions will be stifled.

 

Again, you are wrong time and again, a person "always" reacts in an involuntary way to telling a lie, even in a social setting, relaxed and secure. I see people do it almost every day, that is what helps me be so successful at selling stuff, I always know when people are bluffing, so I call their bluff and win every time.

 

I would be far more relaxed if my lawyer was, in essence, administering the test, as opposed to an official and documented test being administered under police supervision.

 

Again, that is one of the factors for doing a "safe" test. I agree there may be a reduction to the "level" of involuntary reaction to telling a lie in a controlled test, but if you cannot pass that, you are guranteed to fail the test that is for the record.

 

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize if you took it that way. I only meant to convey that I find your appraisal of the authentication of mock tests to be biased and in full disregard of logic.

 

But your wrong, a person cannot just turn off their involuntary responses to telling lies. A lie is a lie and when you are strapped with all the sensors and asked questions, it does not matter if it is the police or someone your paying, it is still going to test if your telling lies or not and everyone is scared of being discovered telling lies.

 

 

Think of it another way, if she is guilty of killing her child, and she is taking a "safe" test, she would still be concerned aboyt those people knowing she lied and concerned that information may get leaked to the press.

 

So there is still significant stress for the guilty.

 

.....or it could backfire and provide a faulty response. Thusly stabbing to death any chance of the investigation leaning away from the innocent parties.

 

It is not going anywhere now, so a failed test could change nothing. The investigators already see them as the prime suspects and a failed test cannot be used in court against them, and as you already admitted, there is only a 2% chance of a false positive, no, any true caring parent would take the test to help their child, if not to clear themselves of suspician.

 

 

I would never take one. Ever. Even if my daughter was missing and I knew she had been taken. I would not take one. I do not believe that they are accurate enough to risk my ass and my daughters life that the test will be accurate. I am not the only one. I posted quotes from a non-bias group that scientifically measured their accuracy, and the appraisal was less than flattering.

 

But that is because your a criminal, you think like a criminal and you believe they may ask you questions that would incriminate you in other thengs. Your a drug user, you have cause to be scared of answering questions honestly to investigators.

 

It is easy for you to say now that you would turn your back on doing everything to help find your daughter because your not in that situation, but if you were in this situation and you knew more police strength could be directed tword looking for a stranger if you just took this 98% chance, I believe you would give your daughter that 98% chance.

 

 

I know I would give my children that 98% chance.

 

 

Lets keep this debate civil guys. There are few debates ongoing on this board that are civil. No more cracks about statements being "retarded" and people having their "heads up thier ass".

 

Agreed?

 

It was you being that way tword me, not the other way around, maybe you need to learn to be civil, point fingers at yourself before you try pointing them at anyone else.

[Jhony5]

#1 Taking a polygraph won't solve this crime

 

 

 

 

#2 You need to start backing your statements up with facts. I have. You got nothing but mouth buddy. Back your sh t up. Specifically statements like this;

Nope, there is plenty of evidence to show they are very accurate, as you said in another post, they are proven to be 98% accurate, the 2% you speak of are chalked up to things like tampering.

Back it up or shut it up. I'm done hearing your bullsh t. Back it up.

 

 

It was you being that way tword me, not the other way around, maybe you need to learn to be civil, point fingers at yourself before you try pointing them at anyone else.

I was addressing Hugo. Not you. Your cynicism needs quite a bit of work, however.

[timesjoke]

#1 Taking a polygraph won't solve this crime

 

Nobody ever said it would, I and others are just saying that if the parents are truly innocent as they "claim" they are, taking the test would allow more energy and resources to be directed in other areas if they take the test and give the investigators a good reason to no longer consider them feasable suspects.

 

 

 

#2 You need to start backing your statements up with facts. I have. You got nothing but mouth buddy. Back your sh t up. Specifically statements like this;

Back it up or shut it up. I'm done hearing your bullsh t. Back it up.

 

I got experience and first hand knowledge, but I will use your own statement against you in this case:

 

The best case scenario, as sited in a biased format by the institution that oversees polygraph examiners, is 98%. A figure that is hotly disputed as overly generous. But even if 98% is the case, this means if 100 people take the test, 2 will be incorrectly accessed.

 

Again, why would any caring parent not give their child the 98% chance?

 

 

I understand your fear of these machines, your a drug user, a criminal, your supposed to be scared of these things, but those of us who have nothing to hide don't share your concern.

 

 

 

 

Obviously these parents have something to hide.

 

I was addressing Hugo. Not you. Your cynicism needs quite a bit of work, however.

 

But you did make negative comments tword me, you cannot bash him for doing what you do.

[snafu]

I think where they become unreliable (the 2%) is how the test was preformed. That?s were you get inconstancies. I would find it hard pressed to believe someone could fool it on multiple tests.

[hugo]

They are guilty, case closed. Sadly, not enough to convince the average dolt to convict. Most people are unable to use statistical analysis to come to the obvious conclusion: the McCanns killed their daughter.

 

Looks like the rich tourists are getting preferential treatment again: Kate and Gerry McCann are spared police questioning 'until after Christmas' | the Daily Mail

 

Yep, give em a couple more weeks to get their story straight.

 

The phuckin' nerve of the child killers: Madeleine McCann's family cancel Christmas - Telegraph

 

Tell 'em I'm celebrating Christmas whether they like it or not.

[timesjoke]

I think where they become unreliable (the 2%) is how the test was preformed. That?s were you get inconstancies. I would find it hard pressed to believe someone could fool it on multiple tests.

 

 

I completely agree, as with most equipment, it is the operator, not the item itself that has a problem.

 

 

How many mechanics have messed up a repair on a car? Does that mean all vehicle reparis have problems or just that certain people did not do the repair correctly?

 

 

I have seen these things in action and been involved in a "myth busters" kind of test on them. Several of us took a week and attempted to "fool" the lie detector. We had no expectation of iminent prison time to worry about but still we could not fool the damn thing as Jhony is trying to say.

 

 

I even tried the needle in the shoe method where you place a tack under your tow and press down on it to cause yourself pain at irregular times during the test and the guy running the test knew what I was doing after about 10 minutes and searched me to find the tack.

 

 

 

 

Like anything else in this world, a highly trained professional operator makes all the difference in accurately running tests like this.

 

 

The guy that we were trying to stump was good, he knew all the tricks and accurately determined truth from lie no matter what we tried to do to trip him up. As was already said, they ask you the same questions in different ways and even when you are just playing a part, it is impossible to have yourself under complete control to fool the machine consistantly.

 

 

 

I was involved in testing a lie detector test that just used cameras and remote sensors. They focused on general things like posture and specific things like your eyes and pupils. I was very impressed at how accurate this thing was as well. It was based on old school methods of human reactions and also new technology like knowing the person's temperature changes without touching him.

[atlantic]

So what happens if the test gives a false positive? How much does that help find her daughter?

 

Yep, that's what I thought. If this happens than everything is screwed up.

 

Also, lie detectors do not work if there is no fear of reprisal. You are wrong about that Hugo. In order to garner an authentic reaction (Sweat, tremors etc) there MUST BE an authentic fear of reprisal for lying.

 

Do you understand? Or does this logic escape you? If it does, then I will bother proving it too you. But you are an intelligent man so I will assume you understand.

This is true. There have been cases where guilty parties have passed lie detector tests and later found guilty because of dna testing, and cases where innocent people have failed the polygraph only to find the real killer later, it can happen.

[Jhony5]

I understand your fear of these machines, your a drug user, a criminal, your supposed to be scared of these things, but those of us who have nothing to hide don't share your concern.

It's called street smarts brother. You think I care if the cops know about my marijuana if my daughter went missing? Honestly. I am not scared of them. I don't trust cops. I don't trust voodoo machines that use magic. I don't play that sh t. "Find my f cking daughter you dumbass pig and stick that machine up your asshole".

 

I was involved in testing a lie detector test that just used cameras and remote sensors. They focused on general things like posture and specific things like your eyes and pupils. I was very impressed at how accurate this thing was as well. It was based on old school methods of human reactions and also new technology like knowing the person's temperature changes without touching him.

You are one of these guys that always turns out to be an experienced expert at every subject being debated. Strangely absent is your proof of such or any accompanying documentation to back up your assertions and theories.

 

I know lie detectors can work. Don't act as if I don't know this. I also, however, know that they can produce erroneous results and the reasons are far broader than mental illness and/or drug use. The reasons can be anything from a poorly trained examiner to a nervous subject. Setting a "control" doesn't always rectify this.

 

I posted a non bias article sighting the fallibility of the polygraph. You ignored it and attempted to dismiss me as a "scared criminal drug addict". Pathetic!

 

Start backing up your assertions in this debate or I will have to dismiss you as mentally unstable. Your anecdotal "expertise" will no longer be accepted as suffice.

 

This is true. There have been cases where guilty parties have passed lie detector tests and later found guilty because of dna testing, and cases where innocent people have failed the polygraph only to find the real killer later, it can happen.

It has happened many many times. Despite TJ's flailing assertions, for inexplicable reasons.

 

A good book about the lie that is the lie detector;

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

 

Facts supporting my opinion of this fraudulent science;

Learn How to Pass (or Beat) a Polygraph Test | AntiPolygraph.org

 

.

 

Make-believe science yields make-believe security.

[timesjoke]

It's called street smarts brother. You think I care if the cops know about my marijuana if my daughter went missing? Honestly. I am not scared of them. I don't trust cops. I don't trust voodoo machines that use magic. I don't play that sh t. "Find my f cking daughter you dumbass pig and stick that machine up your asshole".

 

Actually if you take the time to truly read everything I said, I clearly gave my opinion that your assertions of never taking the test are based on not truly being in that situation and I believe that if you truly were in this situation and had the 98% chance to put more strength into looking for your child's abductors, you would give your daughter that 98% chance of more attention in the right direction.

 

 

If you were innocent that is.

 

 

People always say how much they hate cops but when their behind in on the line, all of a sudden they are who they turn to for help, all of a sudden they like cops, interesting isn't it?

 

 

You are one of these guys that always turns out to be an experienced expert at every subject being debated. Strangely absent is your proof of such or any accompanying documentation to back up your assertions and theories.

 

What do you want me to do man, you want me to post my old paycheck stubs for while I was a cop or do you want me to post a copy of my training certificats that I have to update every 4 years to stay certified in case I want to return?

 

I was a cop and still do private training and go to the law enforcement shooting competitions every year, I stay involved, so what, being a cop and being in training gives me a lot of exposures on things like this, your just upset because I won't let you get away with your bull concerning things I know more about than you do.

 

 

I know lie detectors can work. Don't act as if I don't know this. I also, however, know that they can produce erroneous results and the reasons are far broader than mental illness and/or drug use. The reasons can be anything from a poorly trained examiner to a nervous subject. Setting a "control" doesn't always rectify this.

 

I already said the person doing the test is more important than the machine, machines do what they do, this one measures involuntary rections to questions, those reactions tell the maching how much you reacted to certain questions and those reactions are the telling factor.

 

All lies create a reaction, all lies, not just a lie in front of a cop, that is the part you keep skimming over and I refuse to let you get away with.

 

Do you know what it means when you look up and to the right after I ask you a question? Do you know what it means if you look down and to the left?

 

This is a well established scienc, that is only refuted with junk science in the persuit of lawyers to get criminals off for their crimes.

 

I posted a non bias article sighting the fallibility of the polygraph. You ignored it and attempted to dismiss me as a "scared criminal drug addict". Pathetic!

 

It was not biased and I have personal knowledge of trying to beat these machines that clearly tell me that if the machine is in good working order and you have an experienced operator, the test is very accurate.

 

I have never said there was never errors, but the very few errors that do occur is not the fault of the machine itself and is instead the mistake of the operator.

 

That is why some people will have several tests, each from different people when the situation is very sensative, the use of several tests makes the overall results as close to 100% as is possible in this world.

 

 

Start backing up your assertions in this debate or I will have to dismiss you as mentally unstable. Your anecdotal "expertise" will no longer be accepted as suffice.

 

I could care less what you say on my experience, obviously my experience in the real world is more powerful than your never being involved in these tests in any way so you want to dismiss my greater experience to make your point.

 

Think what you want, I could care less, but I will not let you get away with making false claims.

 

You said yourself the tests were 98% reliable, why would any loving parent not give their child that 98% chance?

 

 

It has happened many many times. Despite TJ's flailing assertions, for inexplicable reasons.

 

Again, I never said they were 100%, but your wanting to dismiss something that is very reliable and accurate based on a 2% number. What things in this life are more reliable than 98%?

 

Especially when we are talking about police investigations. If you can get a 98% chance to assist the direction of an investigation, why would anyone not want that 98% chance?

 

 

Everythign is a tool, nothing is foolproof, the question is do you sit back and condemn everything that does not meet a 100% rating (that would be everything) or do we take the tools we have and use them as best we can?

[ToriAllen]

I don't trust cops. I don't trust voodoo machines that use magic.

You know, paranoia is a common side effect of marijuana?

 

 

I know lie detectors can work. Don't act as if I don't know this. I also, however, know that they can produce erroneous results and the reasons are far broader than mental illness and/or drug use. The reasons can be anything from a poorly trained examiner to a nervous subject. Setting a "control" doesn't always rectify this.

Lie detectors are unreliable which is why for the most part they are inadmissible in court. Nervousness, fear, or any kind of anxiety or emotion can show up as a lie. If the question produces a strong emotion, confusion, or anxiety then the answer could show up as a lie. Also, people who have little emotion, like serial killers, will pass with flying colors. I was hooked up to one in my biopsych class and realized very quickly how unreliable it could be. The questions are very important. Someone asked me if I owned a car. I own a van so I wasn?t sure if they meant vehicle or specifically car. You could see my vitals rising while I thought about how to answer.

 

I clearly gave my opinion that your assertions of never taking the test are based on not truly being in that situation and I believe that if you truly were in this situation and had the 98% chance to put more strength into looking for your child's abductors, you would give your daughter that 98% chance of more attention in the right direction.

 

I would take it, but I would be nervous about the results inspite of telling the truth because I try to read too much into questions.

 

 

I already said the person doing the test is more important than the machine, machines do what they do, this one measures involuntary rections to questions, those reactions tell the maching how much you reacted to certain questions and those reactions are the telling factor.

 

I?m sure an experienced person would try to ask questions that are as unambiguous as possible, but the mental state of the person taking the test has a lot to do with the results.

 

It was not biased and I have personal knowledge of trying to beat these machines that clearly tell me that if the machine is in good working order and you have an experienced operator, the test is very accurate.

 

I have never said there was never errors, but the very few errors that do occur is not the fault of the machine itself and is instead the mistake of the operator.

Emotional reactions can give false positives. I think I would be pretty emotional if my child went missing. Questions about my child would probably be distressing. In that case the experience of the operator wouldn?t make a lot of difference.

 

All lies create a reaction, all lies, not just a lie in front of a cop, that is the part you keep skimming over and I refuse to let you get away with.

 

Do you know what it means when you look up and to the right after I ask you a question? Do you know what it means if you look down and to the left?

That is just the different parts of the brain at work. Up and to the right is retrieving a memory where as up and to the left is generally seen as creating a memory. Down and to the left? I don?t think that is a sign of lying. I think it is similar to up and to the right but I would have to look it up. That is not accurate either. For most left handed people this test is switched because the sides of the brain are switched. There are a lot of ?right handed? people who were born left handed and forced to use their right hand. There are too many variables to rely solely on this and the same is true for the lie detector test.

 

 

That is why some people will have several tests, each from different people when the situation is very sensative, the use of several tests makes the overall results as close to 100% as is possible in this world.

I can see how that might help eliminate operator error, but it would not eliminate bias in the subject. I think one reason the accuracy for lie detectors is so high is that the subjects being tested are usually being tested for a reason. They are already suspects and there is already some evidence pointing toward them. Random testing of the general public might not be so accurate. I think there are benefits to lie detectors. If someone who is guilty fails the test it could intimidate them into confessing. I also think a refusal to take a lie detector test could point toward guilt, but should not be used as a definitive measure, just as failing one shouldn?t be used as a definitive measure. Other evidence is needed, and the collection of evidence and investigation of potential suspects should not end with a failed lie detector test.

[snafu]

. Someone asked me if I owned a car. I own a van so I wasn’t sure if they meant vehicle or specifically car. You could see my vitals rising while I thought about how to answer...

 

This is why they sometimes allow you to see the questions first. So you can get clarification. Also they would ask you the same question in different ways. “Do you own a car?” “Do you own any vehicles?” “Dose your husband own a car?” And then they do the test multiple times. This brings it closer to the truth.

 

Yes they can be decived. I seen a case on Court TV where a lady was abducted by a guy who shot her husband. He told her it was a hunting accedent. She had Stockhome syndrom and belivedd him. Later she recanted and came foward with the abduction.They both took the lie detector test. He passed the test and she failed. I'm not sure how the tests where administered. Later it was found he was guilty by forensics.