Madeleine McCann cops ask Home Office for more money to continue search for missing child

[Tony Edwards]

I have to confess, I have no idea how they escaped that one without being charged. My guess is, if they had not personally known the then PM, and generated massive public support, they would have been. It was negligent to leave the kids alone like that.

In Spain/Portugal in those days? Unlikely.

 

[Sankari]

I have to confess, I have no idea how they escaped that one without being charged.

The other parents with them were doing the same thing, and they weren't charged either.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I don't know what happened and suppose no one ever will but for me its more believable than someone taking the poor kid without any signs of a break in.

The door was left open so all 9 adults could take turns in looking in on them plus the other adults kids.

But for me was the smoking gun, or clever dogs as the case may be.

This one has been put to bed, the dogs found nothing, there was even a BBC documentary going through the dog evidence.

Whether they did it or not they still went out and left their very young kids alone, that should have at least brought some charged but the middle class doctors even got away with that.

They were in Portugal so none of the 9 adults would be done for negligence and this stuff is still going on in all the countries we go on holiday in.

if you can be bothered this is an excellent page on all the myths, there's a section about the dogs also - http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main Page

Also bare in mind the German Police 100% know it's Brueckner, they know from phone logs he was there, they have found other evidence but they can't pin it on him yet.

And to sum up - The McCann's and the other 7 adults were irresponsible human beings and a child paid the price.
They thought looking in every 30 minutes was better than the hotels once an hour but it obviously wasn't.

 

[Mr Jack]

Both parents refused a lie detector test. Not sure why they weren't made to take one as they were suspects and probably still are.

Lie Detector Tests don't work. No-one should take one.

 

[Dis86]

Lie Detector Tests don't work. No-one should take one.

That's not true. They do work. Just not with a level of reliability to be suited as a form of evidence.

 

[Werewolf]

That's not true. They do work. Just not with a level of reliability to be suited as a form of evidence.

IIRC every blind test of them has shown they're about the same level of reliability as the person giving the test on their own.

It's mainly a prop, there are too many variables between people that you can't simply wave away with a handful of test questions, and that's before you even start to consider people who are good at lying or have some understanding of how the machines work and how you can actively mess with them.

 

[Dis86]

IIRC every blind test of them has shown they're about the same level of reliability as the person giving the test on their own.

It's mainly a prop, there are too many variables between people that you can't simply wave away with a handful of test questions, and that's before you even start to consider people who are good at lying or have some understanding of how the machines work and how you can actively mess with them.

Yes, as you say they can be controlled/messed with by someone that knows how. But that's not exactly dave who's just been asked by his Mrs if he's shagging mavis next door!

 

[SpellowHouse]

Lie Detector Tests don't work. No-one should take one.

I agree.

I think they are more accurate immediately after a crime, when reactions are simple. Feelings get complicated after time, if you have some people in the media accusing you.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I remember watching a documentary where a bloke made a mess of all the lie detector results by clenching his bum hole.
So he could truths and make the lie detector think he was telling lies.

 

[Werewolf]

Yes, as you say they can be controlled/messed with by someone that knows how. But that's not exactly dave who's just been asked by his Mrs if he's shagging mavis next door!

IIRC it's not even by someone who knows how they work.

There are simply too many variables between people and the actual equipment and test questions do nothing to zero out most of those, so someone might feel guilty about what has happened (or even something completely unrelated) and that will throw the results off, or someone might feel have done something else and thus the results get thrown off, or the person may simply show more/less response than the baseline which throws the results off, and even then your results are being interpreted by a human who most likely has zero real, repeatable training in it.

It's one of the "junk" proofs that has littered US law enforcement over the years, often based simply on previous successful cases (where a conviction was gained*), and thus the person who got the initial successes is able to "train" up more people and they can refer to the original person's track record, then when their evidence is questioned they call on their trainer or someone else trained by him to back them up. The result is a self reinforcing feedback loop until people start to look at how many of the cases ended up being overturned and why, or Judges actually started to look into the basis of the "science" rather than take a prosecutor's experts word for it (with blood spatter that started to happen about the time it turned out large numbers of cases that rested extremely heavily on the evidence of one guy and his "training school" were being overturned with things like DNA proving it wasn't possible for the convicted person to have done it, unfortunately a number of times after the death sentence had been carried out).

*Please ignore those cases where the key evidence from the expert was found to be nonsense 20 years later.