Maddy McCann

[snafu]

Or they could?ve poisoned there daughter accidentally, paid a local thug to take the wrapped child in a blanket away, hence the eyewitness of a man carrying a child that night. Then later hooking up with said thug and properly disposing of the body later. How about that? It makes perfect sence to me.

CB, I love ya man, but do you really believe that? If they had accidentally overdosed their child would they really involve another party in it. Also, having a medical background they would know the dangers of drugging a child, I do not believe they would do such a thing. I think they were too trusting and naive.

No that?s exactly what I think happened. That would explain their alibi. That would explain being able to hide a body in a foreign country. They found traces of drugs that could?ve done it. Its? the perfect babysitter for arrogant people. That would explain why the cadaver dog made a hit on a rental car rented a week after the abduction. Yes I?ve maintained this scenario from the get.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

I think y'all motherf*ckers are using a bit too much imagination as it is. .

Imagination is necessary to consider all possibilities,as most debaters here are doing.

Beating a child to death would produce lots of blood, spatter patterns on adjacent object/walls/clothing. A mess indeed. Remember, they had but minutes to kill their daughter, think of a place to hide her, subsequently hide the body, get back, clean up, make up a story and call the police. If it doesn't fit.......you must acquit. It don't fit. This line is entirely void of logic and stands in full disregard to common sense and plausibility. .

No, they may have had all day to clean up. They may have killed her at breakfast time, then claimed she was mising that evening.

Big problem with that is that Maddy was seen ALIVE, with her parents, only a few hours before she was reported missing. In this tangled menagerie of activity, surely there would be evidence, witnesses and the like. There is none. .

By who ? A member of their holiday group - a friend. It would not be the first such lie to try and evade justice. There are several of them in here- all at different levels of culpability.

The dogs didn't hit on a dead body being present at the apartment. They hit on minuscule trace amounts of blood that were so small and degraded, that they couldn't even be matched as the same blood type as Maddy, let alone establish a proper DNA match. .

The dogs did hit on a stiff, that is what they are trained to do. The police hit on blood with a reagent caled Illuminum I think.

This fact supports a lone intruder. Whom cannot carry two or three children weighing in excess of 50 pounds in dead (sleeping) weight. .

No. Its more likely only one child was missing because a crim could only carry one child in a blanket without arousing the interest or others. Thats if you agree with your abductor theory, which I dont. I think the parents killed her.

I find it quite ironic that you speak of "imagination". Because this is the kind of thinking that the tabloid fodder has spawned. Inducing people to entertain their macabre side by indulging in a wildly imaginative spectacle at the expense of two grieving parents. .

Real life crimes are often extreme and hard to believe. I still find it difficult to believe Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did, also Chikatillo, Hindley, and jack the ripper. I think the least believable was Sweeney Tod. But in retrospect we know they all did it.

Lacking the imagination to see the possible is not at all helpful in any inquiry.

The McCann's DID NOT have time to ditch a body. The only reports of anyone carrying a child around were of an unidentified man.

See above. They could have had several hours.

And again, who reported this unidentified man ? The McCanns buddy , thats who.

I think they did it. The police now need to break them.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

Or they could?ve poisoned there daughter accidentally, paid a local thug to take the wrapped child in a blanket away, hence the eyewitness of a man carrying a child that night. Then later hooking up with said thug and properly disposing of the body later. How about that? It makes perfect sence to me.

If I had killed someone I would not share the secret with a stranger who could be paid to help. That person is a witness, the very last thing I would want.

No the mother and I would dispose of the body alone, any which way we could without unnecessary witnesses

 

[jhony5]

We are a product of our experiences, but some people learn from them and move on

What are you trying to say? hehehe............Look, I don't trust the cops any more than they trust me when they pull me over. I trust no one but my homies. That's it.

Imagination is necessary to consider all possibilities' date='as most debaters here are doing.[/quote']That may be, however I find it humorous that so many in this thread are leaning toward the imaginative and implausible while discounting the typical and plausible.

By who ? A member of their holiday group - a friend. It would not be the first such lie to try and evade justice. here are several of them in here- all at different levels of culpability.

Typically' date=' for a person to lie to the authorities to protect someone in a capitol murder case, it would require the person to be an extremely intimate personal friend and/or a family member. Not a casual acquaintance on holiday with them. "Hey....killed my kid. Think y'all could do a dude a solid and lie for me? Great, thanks".

The dogs did hit on a stiff, that is what they are trained to do. The police hit on blood with a reagent caled Illuminum I think.

The dogs lead them to them minuscule untraceable blood spots. Then they lit it up using a chemical reagent. *LuminolThe spots were minor. Consistent with a small abrasion or cut.

See above. They could have had several hours.

No they didn't. At best they had 15 minutes or so.

That would explain why the cadaver dog made a hit on a rental car rented a week after the abduction. Yes I’ve maintained this scenario from the get.

Actually the dogs that "hit" on the car were part of a British investigation. And the British police exclaimed that there are many reasonable innocent reasons why this may have happened. The most likely being the dogs weren't "hitting" as they typically would. They were excited by the smell of rotting poultry and meat by-products due to the cars summertime use as a dumper truck used to ferry these products to dump sites. If the agency that was in control of the dogs at the time doubt the situation, than so will I.

 

[ToriAllen]

Real life crimes are often extreme and hard to believe. I still find it difficult to believe Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did, also Chikatillo, Hindley, and jack the ripper. I think the least believable was Sweeney Tod. But in retrospect we know they all did it.

You do realize Sweeney Tod is a fictional charactor, right?

I agree that there are a lot of crimes that are unbelieveable. Any crime involving a parent hurting a child is unbelieveable, but it happens.

What are you trying to say? hehehe............Look, I don't trust the cops any more than they trust me when they pull me over. I trust no one but my homies. That's it.

See, if you hadn't fried all your brain cells you wouldn't have to ask what I'm trying to say.

I'm really not one to talk, I don't trust anyone, even my 'homies'. I'm just not prejudice against cops, specifically. Hence my distrust of lie detector results.

 

[jhony5]

See, if you hadn't fried all your brain cells you wouldn't have to ask what I'm trying to say

Indeed! You wouldn't believe what I have to pay this monkey to sit here and type for me. All my years of drug abuse have caused a rare form of severe dyslexia.

I'm really not one to talk, I don't trust anyone, even my 'homies'. I'm just not prejudice against cops, specifically. Hence my distrust of lie detector results.

I respect cops. I don't mouth off to them. I keep a generally pleasant accord with them. But, I wouldn't trust a cop any further than I could throw his/her ass. I know cops personally and they're always probing you with this introspective magnifying glass. Using what seems to be polite conversation as an investigative tool. Even when they're off work they do this sh*t. I don't trust them.

 

[hugo]

Mr Baptiste told the newspaper that he recalled the men checking on the children on previous nights. On 3 May he recalled only Mrs McCann leaving the table to check.

Another link in the chain of evidence pointing to Kate. I respect women. I don't mouth off to them. I keep a generally pleasant accord with them. But, I wouldn't trust a woman any further than I could throw her ass.

 

[jhony5]

Another link in the chain of evidence pointing to Kate. I respect women. I don't mouth off to them. I keep a generally pleasant accord with them. But, I wouldn't trust a woman any further than I could throw her ass.

Hugo, you sneaky snake!

You makes me laugh.........

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

I find it humorous that so many in this thread are leaning toward the imaginative and implausible while discounting the typical and plausible..

Any theory is plausible given the vast array of criminal behaviours.

Typically, for a person to lie to the authorities to protect someone in a capitol murder case, it would require the person to be an extremely intimate personal frien.

d and/or a family member. Not a casual acquaintance on holiday with them. They were on holiday with friends, not casual acquantancies.

The dogs lead them to them minuscule untraceable blood spots. Then they lit it up using a chemical reagent. *Luminol.

No. The dogs led them to a specific scent unique to dead human flesh. Luminol was sprayed all over the room, perhaps in response to this, or maybe it is routine where foul play is suspected. It was the use of luminol which revealed the blood.

The spots were minor. Consistent with a small abrasion or cut..

Of course the spots were minor. The McCanns had by then cleaned up the mess as best as they could by eye, without the aid of reagents

No they didn't. At best they had 15 minutes or so.This is theory. But first you have to be thick enough to believe the McCanns buddy really did see the kid alive a few hours before the murder.

They may as I said have had several hours assuming they did the murder at breakfast time, then reported the kids missing after their evening restaurant meal.

Actually the dogs that "hit" on the car were part of a British investigation. And the British police exclaimed that there are many reasonable innocent reasons why this may have happened. The most likely being the dogs weren't "hitting" as they typically would. They were excited by the smell of rotting poultry and meat by-products due to the cars summertime use as a dumper truck used to ferry these products to dump sites. If the agency that was in control of the dogs at the time doubt the situation, than so will I.

I have not read this. Nor would I believe it if I did. A dogs sense of smell is incredible. Combine this with a dog/human sign language and you have a talking dog. A fine tool.

The McCanns are still holding up well. But they will not get away with this. Expect a breakdown in one of the parents sometime in 2008.

 

[jhony5]

I have not read this. Nor would I believe it if I did. A dogs sense of smell is incredible. Combine this with a dog/human sign language and you have a talking dog. A fine tool.

This is why people should actually read the links provided in a debate. As I have many times in this thread. People ignore them' date=' they do not read the material. Instead dismissing the opportunity to broaden their viewpoints. Dogs are highly fallible, as well as their handlers. Dogs lick their own assholes. Let us not pretend they went to an Ivy League college.

Of course the spots were minor. The McCanns had by then cleaned up the mess as best as they could by eye, without the aid of reagents

Actually the police allowed the cleaning staff of the hotel to clean the room long before they ever did a proper investigation. One of many reasons why any evidence offered is tainted. That blood could have been anyones. Anything short of muriatic acid will fail to properly clean a blood spot.

They were on holiday with friends, not casual acquaintances.

Be honest man. How good of a friend would you have to be to provide false witness to protect someone in a capitol murder case?I have friends that I have been tight with for 28 years. I would not help them get away with murdering their own child. Think about that for a few, please. People don't just casually delve into sh*t like that.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

This is why people should actually read the links provided in a debate. As I have many times in this thread. People ignore them, they do not read the material. Instead dismissing the opportunity to broaden their viewpoints.

Good point John, along with others I have a tendency to be a litle dismissive of viewpoints I disagree with, and hence, avoid delving too far into links favourable with said viewpoints. Having said that, we can't go into everything can we, or I'l never get all that beer drunk that Santa sent me.

Dogs are highly fallible, as well as their handlers. Dogs lick their own assholes. Let us not pretend they went to an Ivy League college.

I dont much care what dogs like to lick in their own time. Their sense of smell is incredible. My money is on those dogs being right.

Actually the police allowed the cleaning staff of the hotel to clean the room long before they ever did a proper investigation. One of many reasons why any evidence offered is tainted. That blood could have been anyones. Anything short of muriatic acid will fail to properly clean a blood spot.

Its amazing that the Portugese police allowed this to happen. Rank incompetence. However, the blod is most unlikely as you say to have been anyones. It matches the toddler to about 80-90%. Thats pretty compelling. I'm guessing tha both parents have been analysed and ruled out.

Be honest man. How good of a friend would you have to be to provide false witness to protect someone in a capitol murder case?

There are al sorts of peple out there, doing all sorts of strange risky things. Some admit to crimes they had no part in. Why? I dont know. Some of hese sado's are probably excited to receive attention, and possibly even get to be on the TV. Others probably have low IQ. Perhaps they really were good friends, and cannot believe their friends are really responsible for this heinous crime.

It could be the "witnesses " you mention, did not see the child at all a few hours before the disapearance of the toddler. They may feel duty bound to lie in an attempt to help friends they feel are innocent, so a lie then, will not really mater, or so they think.

When people like this finally see the possibility/probability that they are wrong, they usually change sides quicky. This is the sort of breakthrough the police need.

We saw this in the UK a few years ago, when Ian Huntleys girlfriend finaly came to see that he may well have done as the prosecution claimed. She initially was a witness to his being unable to murder the children Holly and Jessica. Once she saw through him she told the truth, and that was the beginning of his downfall.

I have friends that I have been tight with for 28 years. I would not help them get away with murdering their own child. Think about that for a few, please. People don't just casually delve into sh*t like that.

Read above, they do indeed John.

 

[snafu]

..I dont much care what dogs like to lick in their own time. Their sense of smell is incredible. My money is on those dogs being right..

I bet if we could reach it....

..There are al sorts of peple out there, doing all sorts of strange risky things. Some admit to crimes they had no part in. Why? I don't know. Some of these sado's are probably excited to receive attention, and possibly even get to be on the TV. Others probably have low IQ. Perhaps they really were good friends, and cannot believe their friends are really responsible for this heinous crime.

It could be the "witnesses " you mention, did not see the child at all a few hours before the disapearance of the toddler. They may feel duty bound to lie in an attempt to help friends they feel are innocent, so a lie then, will not really mater, or so they think.

When people like this finally see the possibility/probability that they are wrong, they usually change sides quicky. This is the sort of breakthrough the police need.

We saw this in the UK a few years ago, when Ian Huntleys girlfriend finaly came to see that he may well have done as the prosecution claimed. She initially was a witness to his being unable to murder the children Holly and Jessica. Once she saw through him she told the truth, and that was the beginning of his downfall.

Read above, they do indeed John.

Its really simple to get someone to do your dirty work. Come on, money talks. Crimes and cover ups happens every day. Criminals are everywhere looking for a buck. Once they've done a job for money, they tend to keep their mouths shut.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

I bet if we could reach it.... QUOTE]

What !!!!! You want to rummage in a drug-sniffing dogs arse with your tongue !!!!!!!!!! Well, I've heard it all now, mutter, mutter mutter....

 

[hugo]

Two drunks had just gotten thrown out of the bar and are walking down the street when they come across this dog, sitting on the curb, licking his balls. They stand there watching and after a while one of them says, "I sure wish I could do that!"

The other one slowly looks at him and says, "Well... I think you'd better pet him first".

Latest news a blue tennis bag of Gerry's is missing and nowhere to be found.

 

[Times]

I'm sorry I was gone for a few days, personal life, Christmas and all that but I want to reply to this

I didn't say that I "hate cops". I said I don't trust cops. They feed cases to the prosecutor whom gets paid to put you in a cage. It makes a prosecutor look bad if he cannot accomplish this.

So you like them to save your life if you need them to but other then that, they are scum right?

Cops are people, just like you, they make mistakes, some have attitudes, some are great and have only the best intentions. Your blanket disreguard and insult for all cops is not right, but I don't expect you to admit that.

Oh, there is one other thing, all cops do a job that is dangerious and could cause their death at any moment, all to protect their communities, maybe they deserve better than your giving.

My point being, the police shouldn't allow a magic machine to determine the direction of the investigation. It is not admissible in most courts, unlike "evidence" and "facts".

It is a tool, like any other tool in life, it helps us.

You cannot get to court until you do the investigation, and the investigation can get some assistance with it's direction with tools like this.

I have never heard you say this before. This is the interenet. I'm sure you are aware of the "know it all" syndrome that some people suffer from.

You could have just asked, as some have to me in pm's here, but I guess this was easier for you.

I believe you. About being an ex-cop, that is. I had to question you in order to gauge your reaction. You seem genuine.

Should I feel honored by your acceptance?

What I am saying is the same reguardless of my past jobs, the lie detedtor is a very useful tool that can assist this investigation to go the right direction, but the parents refuse to take the test so that is a kind of admission to me.

Looking up is indicative that one is searching their brain for an answer or excuse. Looking down? I believe that is indicative of guilt. Not 100% sure, but this is why I always made a point of looking a cop in his eyes when I lied to them.

That is why an experienced investigator will get you off guard first, get you talking about other things and pop the telling question on you when your not waiting for it.

That is the BEST case offered by the institution that is in the business of selling polygraph examiners on the open market. Logic tells us this is an inflated, best case figure. I posted several sources that hotly dispute this number as actually being much much lower. 80-95% depending on the operator.

Again with your logic claims.

You don't like what reality tells us so you make leaps of "logic" to make assumptions you cannot support, I'm sorry but my real life experience of trying to beat these machines tells me that if you have a good operator, these things are as close to 100% as you can ever ask for.

Even if we said the number was lower for arguement, what parent would not give their child an 80% chance? As you said, the results are not admissable in court so if their innocent and get found to be telling lies by the machine, nothing changes, these parents are still the focus of the investigation as they have been all along.

But, if their innocent and they pass the test, now the investigation can take most of their resources off of that direction and instead spend those resources on looking elsewhere.

Any innocent parent who had a missing child and was not involved would give their child the greatest chance of finding them, or their killers. What is the greater chance? What gives the highest percentage?

The way I see it, the cops should be investigating upon evidence, not magic. Even in the best case, you would have a 2% chance of sending the cops after yourself, the innocent person. Better hope you aren't that 2 in a hundred.

As I already covered, nothing really changes, the parents are considered the killers now, if their not the killers, what gives them the best chance of letting the cops know this?

How can they help the investigators feel okay about turning their attention away from the most likely killers in cases like this?

Real evidence has a 100% chance of being accurate. DNA, the murder weapon with your prints etc. Real evidence.

Now your just being silly.

Nothing is 100%, even DNA evidence has it's limits such as the 80 to 90 percent match on the blood recovered.

By your standard, nobody gets investigated for anything in this world because nothing can meet your 100% requirement for accuracy.

Sometimes we must use the element of elimination to know what has happened, the parents can mostly eliminate themselves as suspects if they pass a lie detector test but for some reason, they refuse to take one. So, they will remain the prime suspects until a reason comes along to give them cause to look elsewhere.

When people start wandering into the realm of unreliable mechanical mind reading devices, we are being dishonest to the investigation. It is a proverbial "desperate move" by the police in the absence of real evidence.

If 98% or even 90% is not reliable to you, what is? Everything is subject to failure, even if it is small so all we can do is gather what information we can and move forward from there.

The reason we use tools like this is because sometimes there is no picture of the crime to go on. Sometimes the killer did not bleed all over the place so we can use DNA evidence to place him at the scene. Sometimes we must use things like lied detectors and even gut instinct to take us into directions we cannot go based on the hard evidence.

Most crimes are solved by investigators using their skills than are solved by open and shut available evidence from the scene.

 

[IWS]

My point being, the police shouldn't allow a magic machine to determine the direction of the investigation. It is not admissible in most courts, unlike "evidence" and "facts".

Looking up is indicative that one is searching their brain for an answer or excuse. Looking down? I believe that is indicative of guilt. Not 100% sure, but this is why I always made a point of looking a cop in his eyes when I lied to them.

I'm not arguing either way, I'm not a scientist and can't argue expertly on this subject and anything I say would just be my opinion based on my personal experience.

My question to jhony5 is, why do you believe in this looking up/looking down, thing as being a credible way of telling deceit, but not a polygraph, that monitors involuntary biological response? You, yourself, said that you make an attempt to fool this method, by staring a cop in the eyes. To my knowledge, a cop can't really testify in court that someone lied to them because they looked up before answering the question.

Does this mean that all investigatory tools currently used by cops should be abandoned, unless it can be backed by science and testified in court? Should cops stop using their gut instinct to lead them to a suspect, since he can't say that he checked into a certain person because he had a "feeling", which then led him to the evidence to convict the person?

.

.

.

 

[snafu]

I really hope I am wrong in pointing the finger at the parents. Here's just another story.

http://www.travelblog.org/Africa/Morocco/Marrakech-Tensift-El-Haouz/Marrakech/blog-166507.html

 

[atlantic]

I really hope I am wrong in pointing the finger at the parents. Here's just another story.http://www.travelblog.org/Africa/Morocco/Marrakech-Tensift-El-Haouz/Marrakech/blog-166507.html

This needs to be checked out.

 

[jhony5]

So you like them to save your life if you need them to but other then that' date=' they are scum right?[/quote']Now that's just dumb to say. How the f*ck did you extrapolate that from what I said? I don't trust cops because they are people. People are not to be trusted. I trust my good friends, my word and my balls.

Oh, there is one other thing, all cops do a job that is dangerous and could cause their death at any moment, all to protect their communities, maybe they deserve better than your giving.

Bullsh*t! Don't give me that line of trash. "They do it to help people". Laughity har har. What they are doing is falling in-line with their personalities, choosing a career that feeds their need for power and control over others. Doctors help people. Councilors help people. Cops lock people in cages, strip them naked, rummage through their belongings on a suspicion that they may have something they are not supposed to, they electrocute, beat and torture people whom disrespect them their "power" and "authority". Cops can be good people and they can be helpful. I always extend respect to them as long as they don't disrespect me or violate my own code of rights.

I remember once sitting on the side of the road being interrogated by a cop as to why I was in a particularly bad neighborhood. I had a pretty nice Chevy Tahoe, so I guess in America you aren't allowed to enter low income neighborhoods without a pass. The officer pulled me over for an improper lane change (BULLSH*T) and immediately asked me what I was doing in that neighborhood. I explained I was there to pick up an employee 3 streets over. "Well where are you coming from? What direction? Why are you picking him up? Whats his name? Whats his address"?

After a few I asked him to give me the f*cking ticket and if he wishes to continue asking me more questions, he can do so downtown in front of my lawyer. Ohhhh boy did that piss off this typical type-A assclown. I could almost hear his thoughts; "How dare this little person not do what I say! I'm gonna show him who runs the show". I was asked to exit my vehicle and the song and dance began. I stood there while this jerk riffled through my every belonging, my pockets, he was thorough, even frisking me and tucking his finger under my balls.

The impression was profound. I'm a taxpaying, hard working American, I have ZERO convictions on file and here I am on the side of the road being violated by a man whom wouldn't stop in his pursuit to catch drug dealers. He even lied to pull me over, which was evident by the lack of an issuance of a ticket for the "probable cause", let alone any further mention of it.

This incident is not an isolated one. I see, experience and hear of these sorts of power plays being exercised by police all the time.There is a reason for this. Cops are most often type-A personalities and they ooze this from their every pore.

 

[jhony5]

My question to jhony5 is' date=' why do you believe in this looking up/looking down, thing as being a credible way of telling deceit, but not a polygraph, that monitors involuntary biological response? You, yourself, said that you make an attempt to fool this method, by staring a cop in the eyes. To my knowledge, a cop can't really testify in court that someone lied to them because they looked up before answering the question.[/quote']I don't believe in this method. TJ does, he brought it up. I was explaining that I realize that police use these tactics to draw conclusions. So in my shady past and even the present with my marijuana travelings, when I am being interrogated, hiding something from the cops or otherwise just trying to prevent the officer from drudging up more reasons to f*ck with me, I'll look 'em in the eye, answer him with short stubby answers and let him do the work.

Does this mean that all investigatory tools currently used by cops should be abandoned' date=' unless it can be backed by science and testified in court? Should cops stop using their gut instinct to lead them to a suspect, since he can't say that he checked into a certain person because he had a "feeling", which then led him to the evidence to convict the person?[/quote']Thats just it. A polygraph is not a reliable tool and can cause far more damage than good. It can ruin lives of the innocent. It can lead police away from, or toward, the wrong persons.

It is a tool' date=' like any other tool in life, it helps us.[/quote']A shovel is a tool. A very handy one that many of us use all the time. But how many people would use a shovel if 2 in 100 exploded when you used it? Because thats what your esteemed "tool" does, by admission of the very institution that supports the polygraph, at least 2 in 100 times it is used, it blows up.

I know. Logic is a motherf*cker, ain't it?

That is why an experienced investigator will get you off guard first, get you talking about other things and pop the telling question on you when your not waiting for it.

I learned long ago that nonchalance and indifference will knock a cop off his toes and onto his heels really really fast. What this does is it creates a void in his training. He learned that guilty people respond with X, and innocent people respond with Y. You also just supported what I meant when I stated "never trust a cop". They may seem to be conversating with you, but really they are playing a game. Understanding this from the get-go will relieve one of the potentially relentless mind games played by cops.

There are rules when dealing with a cop that is asking questions.

#1 Only answer a specific question once, no matter how it is rephrased. If he rephrases a question and you realize this, explain to him that you already answered that.

#2 Don't care. DO NOT CARE about the consequences. Tune it out and proceed as if you have a get out of jail free card. Nonchalance is your friend.

#3 Do not trust the cop. Do not believe him.

#4 This one is very important; When you answer the questions such as "Where are you going, where are you coming from, why are you here, why were you there", answer them directly without a long supporting story being attached to it. This doesn't allow the cop to have anything to work with. If he/she wants it, they will press you.

Example; COP: "Where are you coming from"?

ME : "My house".

COP : "Where is your house"?

ME : "Indianapolis".

COP : "Where in Indianapolis"?

ME : "Southwest side".

Ya see? Answer them directly without a story. Make 'em work for it. Don't start in with details as this just creates problems and will arouse his contempt. As much as it angers a type-A when you are matching wits with him/her, they will at least respect you for not being weak and making them do the work. As in my story above when I was questioned and searched for driving a nice truck in a poor neighborhood, allow this circle of questions to go around twice. On the third go-round, stop playing his game and cease to cooperate.

20 years of marijuana use and a litany of petty crimes in my past and not one arrest. There is a reason for this. Smooth criminal.

You don't like what reality tells us so you make leaps of "logic" to make assumptions you cannot support' date=' I'm sorry but my real life experience of trying to beat these machines tells me that if you have a good operator, these things are as close to 100% as you can ever ask for.Even if we said the number was lower for argument, what parent would not give their child an 80% chance? As you said, the results are not admissible in court so if their innocent and get found to be telling lies by the machine, nothing changes, these parents are still the focus of the investigation as they have been all along.

But, if their innocent and they pass the test, now the investigation can take most of their resources off of that direction and instead spend those resources on looking elsewhere.

Any innocent parent who had a missing child and was not involved would give their child the greatest chance of finding them, or their killers. What is the greater chance? What gives the highest percentage?

[/quote']This discussion is becoming circular in its resolve.

You keep talking about the parents helping by subjecting themselves to a phony test that may backfire. How does that help when the test fails? Which it does fail often enough to garner disdain for the practice itself.

Answer me, TJ. How does it help if the test fails? Upon the answer of this you get your reason why a parent should never subject themselves to such erroneous machinery.

This follows my method of operation when dealing with cops. Answer their questions twice, after that, when the tone turns accusatory, demand that all further questions be posed to your lawyer. And by all means, do not ever, never, under any circumstances allow them to hook you up to a polygraph thinking that this will help them find your child. It will not!

Sometimes we must use the element of elimination to know what has happened' date=' the parents can mostly eliminate themselves as suspects if they pass a lie detector test but for some reason, they refuse to take one. So, they will remain the prime suspects until a reason comes along to give them cause to look elsewhere.[/quote']There are many examples available of police giving a polygraph, the suspect passes it, and they continue to investigate them. Ironically, citing the inaccuracy of the polygraph as reason for further investigation. Begging the question "Why f*ckin use it in the first place"?

If 98% or even 90% is not reliable to you, what is? Everything is subject to failure, even if it is small so all we can do is gather what information we can and move forward from there.

Because, you cannot tell when a lie detector fails. There are no indications, no signs pop-up, no red flags or bells nor whistles sound. When your car fails, you know. When your airplane fails, you know. When your spinal cord fails, you know. When your f*cking toaster fails, you know. When your lie detector fails, you have not a clue.

Understands .........?