Maddy McCann

[atlantic]

I think it is really sad that so many people could say such awful things about people they don't know. They aren't using fund money as a profit to pay their mortgage. That is just so wrong, Hugo. They paid their legal costs out of pocket for some time and damn near were going broke after being out of work for 6 months, so they used some of the fund money to pay for their mortgage that they paid out of pocket with permission from the fund treasurer. They weren't working so they could concentrate on their case and their daughter. Thusly, the fund money being used to pay for 2 months of their mortgage seems justified to me. Thats probably $2,000 out of the $2.3 million they have at their disposal. Or at least that is the understanding I had of it. Of course those that already think that they killed their daughter are jumping on this like sharks on a wounded seal. With no regard to how they would feel if they were in the same boat.

This whole thing is sicko entertainment.

I just wanna know how y'all are gonna feel if and when the case is solved and the McCann's are cleared? Maybe that is an inappropriate question but I cannot help but to wonder.

People will never get past the fact that they left her alone and will cling to that. Even I cannot believe their ignorance. I do believe she was abducted by a stranger but that may not have happened if her parents were there. Hugo have a heart will ya.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

Maybe she does some sort of training for med students or.........?

or maybe she killed the kid..

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

Maybe she's a really, really bad GP and has a lot of patients die in her officie?

Yeah maybe. Kinda like Doctor Shipman. H was a GP in Manchester UK.He had a body count of maybe 100+

No wait. This makes him one in millions. I still think she did it.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

Something stinks about this case.

I'm thinking you should go round there and spank the truth out of them Feckie

 

[Times]

I think it is really sad that so many people could say such awful things about people they don't know.

But that is the problem I am having with what you are claiming.

You have said time and again that every police officer over there are liers. You keep making up all sorts of excuses and trying to streach the limits of reason for excuses when the story that is most likely based on statistics and does not need any twisting of the information we have at hand is that the parents are involved in some way, either an accident they are covering up or something much worse.

With this story, we don't need to imagins hundreds of corrupt police are all conspiring against these two people. With this story we don't need to make excuses for why cadavar dogs are not reliable, or why they hit on a car rented 4 weeks later. With this story we don't need to figure out an innocent way dogs could hit on the appartment. With this story we don't need to imagine why somone would use difficult entry methods or why the storys of the dinners don't match with the weighters.

With this story, everything lines up, everything looks like the parents were involved, now this bring up an old saying:

"If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, ant it quacks like a duck........there is a good chance it is a duck."

I just wanna know how y'all are gonna feel if and when the case is solved and the McCann's are cleared? Maybe that is an inappropriate question but I cannot help but to wonder.

For me, I am just a nobody making a deduction based on the available information and will not feel bad or good if new informations comes available to prove these parents innocent, to be honest, I have already said several times that most parents would rather believe a stranger does these bad things over a parent anyway.

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.

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

 

[hugo]

Dude, I would NEVER take a lie detector test. EVER. Junk science that has been proven highly fallible. Fail that and they're done, guilty or not.Do not ever ever take one of those ignorant tests. Some critics have placed a 10%-20% fallibility rate on the lie detector. The true degree of err is unknown. 32 of the 50 states spit at the lie detector for use in court. For good reason.

If it meant an 80-90% (using your numbers) of clearing me in the eyes of the police so they would have more resources to find my child I would take that fallible test in a heartbeat. She's guilty.

 

[Times]

A lie detector can only detect a "reaction" to the question given to you, nothing more. The concept is your going to react more when you tell a lie then when you are telling the truth. Any of us that have told lies and had that funny feeling in your stomach knows what I am talking about.

The failure rates talked about are concerning people who either have no reactions (certain mental conditions can account for this and drugs can also do this) or their reactions are not consistant for some reason so it makes the test less than accurate.

Certain things can be done by the tester to try and lead the subject to certain reactions but a good test is very reliable.

If I was considered as a suspect to the killing or abduction of my child and I was innocent, I would beg for a test, maybe I would ask for an independant group to do it, but I would do it to take unneeded attention away from me and get it directed tword the real criminals who harmed my child.

But if I was guilty, I would run from the test like the plague.

 

[hugo]

A lie detector can only detect a "reaction" to the question given to you, nothing more. The concept is your going to react more when you tell a lie then when you are telling the truth. Any of us that have told lies and had that funny feeling in your stomach knows what I am talking about.The failure rates talked about are concerning people who either have no reactions (certain mental conditions can account for this and drugs can also do this) or their reactions are not consistant for some reason so it makes the test less than accurate.

Certain things can be done by the tester to try and lead the subject to certain reactions but a good test is very reliable.

If I was considered as a suspect to the killing or abduction of my child and I was innocent, I would beg for a test, maybe I would ask for an independant group to do it, but I would do it to take unneeded attention away from me and get it directed tword the real criminals who harmed my child.

But if I was guilty, I would run from the test like the plague.

I am betting her lawyers already gave her a test and she failed.

 

[snafu]

I am betting her lawyers already gave her a test and she failed.

Yeah they're gonna test the waters first. If she where to pass they would've jumped on it from the get.

 

[Times]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Times]

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?

 

[Times]

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' date=' 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 butt hole 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.

 

[Times]

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 butt hole 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' date=' very dissapointed.[/quote']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, 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' date=' 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.[/quote']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' date=' 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.[/quote']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?