UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: south of the river on January 08, 2014, 09:23:25 AM
-
was on ITV last night - interviewed various crime experts who study crime and interviews with some high profile cases - Philpots, Matthews etc - all the usual suspects
Anyone watch it ?
-
I did find it interesting that he expert who was commenting on the various TV statements by lots of now guilty people did decide to comment that in her opinion the McCann's were 100% innocent
to those that say why were the McCann's included - well it is a massively high profile case that has loads of TV interviews so makes perfect sense to compare them.
Remember most of the examples used were also innocent ( until proved guilty ) at the time of their outpourings
If the expert had any doubt atall then I suppose they would not have included them in the documentary
-
I started a thread about the lying game - as I did think it very interesting documentary - But as a newb it is waiting approval ?
anyhoo I did find it interesting that he expert who was commenting on the various TV statements by lots of now guilty people did decide to comment that in her opinion the McCann's were 100% innocent
to those that say why were the McCann's included - well it is a massively high profile case that has loads of TV interviews so makes perfect sense to compare them.
Remember most of the examples used were also innocent ( until proved guilty ) at the time of their outpourings
If the expert had any doubt atall then I suppose they would not have included them in the documentary
Television programmes are seldom as they appear on the screen and its possible that the cases discussed were selected by the Director and experts chosen accordingly to make for an interesting programme.
-
The TV company that made the programme, ie Shine
http://www.shinegroup.tv/people/elisabeth-murdoch
My only comment is why the Mccanns featured in it at all....
Thanks for the link Red. Just another conspiracy theory in the making then? Pathetic IMO.
-
Thanks for the link Red. Just another conspiracy theory in the making then? Pathetic IMO.
It's so, so desperate, isn't it. Some of the comments that were made about the forensic psychologist on other sites are absolutely disgusting. For daring to voice her professional opinion, she gets insulted, people attempt to trash her good name, and now she's also part of some multi-national conspiracy involving Murdoch!
What utter, utter nonsense.
-
It's so, so desperate, isn't it. Some of the comments that were made about the forensic psychologist on other sites are absolutely disgusting. For daring to voice her professional opinion, she gets insulted, people attempt to trash her good name, and now she's also part of some multi-national conspiracy involving Murdoch!
What utter, utter nonsense.
yes I have seen the response on other forums regarding how she dared to voice an opinion and must be a Twit ( at best ) to somehow involved with some Murdoch/ Clarence Mitchell / overall conspiracy that is timed to come out at the exact time of the libel trial etc etc
She is not some anonymous stranger off the net - she is highly qualified and has a paid career in analysing statements
but no she is probably innit as well
-
yes I have seen the response on other forums regarding how she dared to voice an opinion and must be a Twit ( at best ) to somehow involved with some Murdoch/ Clarence Mitchell / overall conspiracy that is timed to come out at the exact time of the libel trial etc etc
She is not some anonymous stranger off the net - she is highly qualified and has a paid career in analysing statements
but no she is probably innit as well
I dont think that for one minute. The only thing i think is if you already know they are guility then its easy to decide what part of the body language gave them away.
I have done body language I dont have a PHD and I am not so clever either, but I can tell you there are lots of people i have thought are guilty and I was right. Not once have I been wrong. I found myself getting a tad cynical of all these crying and wailing people as it usually turns out they have done something wrong.
I didnt even bother to watch the programme to be honest, and I have no thoughts about it either way.
Some people can cover up lies I think it also depends on what they do in life.
IF you look at Phillpott, and Hazel and Mathews they are not exactly highly intelligent.
I think someone who is used to dealing with death, hard facts of life etc, or even training people they have a certain presence about them and confidence. They can look confident and relaxed.
I can do that. I have taught communication skills and its all about how well you communicate IMHO as to how you can fool people....
CON ARTISTS. There are lots of them about and they can con people so easy, the gullible or not so gullible, Frank Abagnale was one of them very successful too.
People can lie and never get caught out on it. Like I said CONFIDENCE is the key with a certain amount of arrogance.
-
I dont think that for one minute. The only thing i think is if you already know they are guility then its easy to decide what part of the body language gave them away.
I have done body language I dont have a PHD and I am not so clever either, but I can tell you there are lots of people i have thought are guilty and I was right. Not once have I been wrong. I found myself getting a tad cynical of all these crying and wailing people as it usually turns out they have done something wrong.
I didnt even bother to watch the programme to be honest, and I have no thoughts about it either way.
Some people can cover up lies I think it also depends on what they do in life.
IF you look at Phillpott, and Hazel and Mathews they are not exactly highly intelligent.
I think someone who is used to dealing with death, hard facts of life etc, or even training people they have a certain presence about them and confidence. They can look confident and relaxed.
I can do that. I have taught communication skills and its all about how well you communicate IMHO as to how you can fool people....
CON ARTISTS. There are lots of them about and they can con people so easy, the gullible or not so gullible, Frank Abagnale was one of them very successful too.
People can lie and never get caught out on it. Like I said CONFIDENCE is the key with a certain amount of arrogance.
+1
-
It's so, so desperate, isn't it. Some of the comments that were made about the forensic psychologist on other sites are absolutely disgusting. For daring to voice her professional opinion, she gets insulted, people attempt to trash her good name, and now she's also part of some multi-national conspiracy involving Murdoch!
What utter, utter nonsense.
Par for the course with some people Victoria. They can't legitimately challenge what Dr Leal said - and so (as in every other instance where they are faced with 'unpalatable' news from anyone which doesn't point the finger at the McCanns) - they trash, insult and ridicule the author.
It's a ridiculous reaction - but they need to reassure themselves that they are right about the McCanns and IMO that's how they go about it. An exercise in self-delusion on a grand scale IMO - and one which says far more about them than they obviously realise - as their vile comments are abhorrent to any decent person imo.
-
Par for the course with some people Victoria. They can't legitimately challenge what Dr Leal said - and so (as in every other instance where they are faced with 'unpalatable' news from anyone which doesn't point the finger at the McCanns) - they trash, insult and ridicule the author.
It's a ridiculous reaction - but they need to reassure themselves that they are right about the McCanns and IMO that's how they go about it. An exercise in self-delusion on a grand scale IMO - and one which says far more about them than they obviously realise - as their vile comments are abhorrent to any decent person imo.
So why moan and whinge about these people on here? Why dont you go over there and do it? or n twitter or wherever you hang out, or one of the dedicated sights to slag off others......Unless, shock horror, you want to associate.....Haphazardly....
>@@(*&)
-
Par for the course with some people Victoria. They can't legitimately challenge what Dr Leal said - and so (as in every other instance where they are faced with 'unpalatable' news from anyone which doesn't point the finger at the McCanns) - they trash, insult and ridicule the author.
It's a ridiculous reaction - but they need to reassure themselves that they are right about the McCanns and IMO that's how they go about it. An exercise in self-delusion on a grand scale IMO - and one which says far more about them than they obviously realise - as their vile comments are abhorrent to any decent person imo.
You have to be realistic, though. The programme makers would never have been allowed to broadcast anything that might have been subject to a libel suit, had any of the experts expressed such an opinion.
-
You have to be realistic, though. The programme makers would never have been allowed to broadcast anything that might have been subject to a libel suit, had any of the experts expressed such an opinion.
And quite right, too. Of course, they didn't have to mention the McCanns at all. They CHOSE to, because the McCanns are a good example of innocent people who some idiots mistakenly think show signs of guilt.
-
And quite right, too. Of course, they didn't have to mention the McCanns at all. They CHOSE to, because the McCanns are a good example of innocent people who some idiots mistakenly think show signs of guilt.
Who knows why they chose the McCanns. Could have been because they are notorious and would be a good draw to the target audience.
-
And quite right, too. Of course, they didn't have to mention the McCanns at all. They CHOSE to, because the McCanns are a good example of innocent people who some idiots mistakenly think show signs of guilt.
A matter of opinion not fact....sigh
-
Par for the course with some people Victoria. They can't legitimately challenge what Dr Leal said - and so (as in every other instance where they are faced with 'unpalatable' news from anyone which doesn't point the finger at the McCanns) - they trash, insult and ridicule the author.
It's a ridiculous reaction - but they need to reassure themselves that they are right about the McCanns and IMO that's how they go about it. An exercise in self-delusion on a grand scale IMO - and one which says far more about them than they obviously realise - as their vile comments are abhorrent to any decent person imo.
She has given her judgement. ONE person..........................
Other forensic psychologists have said different. 8)-)))
-
So why moan and whinge about these people on here? Why dont you go over there and do it? or n twitter or wherever you hang out, or one of the dedicated sights to slag off others......Unless, shock horror, you want to associate.....Haphazardly....
>@@(*&)
I'm stating my opinion on the reaction of some people to Dr. Teals statement regarding the McCanns. If you don't like it - then there is nothing to stop you taking your own advice.
-
You have to be realistic, though. The programme makers would never have been allowed to broadcast anything that might have been subject to a libel suit, had any of the experts expressed such an opinion.
The programme wasn't about the McCanns. One Forensic Psychologist made a comment about them. The fury, bile and disgusting accusations that single assessment has unleashed against the person who made it is so shocking and unjust it should be commented on IMO. This is the Justice Forum isn't it?
-
I'm stating my opinion on the reaction of some people to Dr. Teals statement regarding the McCanns. If you don't like it - then there is nothing to stop you taking your own advice.
Im not the one moaning about what others say on other forums and bringing it on here.? And thrn asking this is the justice forum isnt it?...so no advice to take.....
-
The programme wasn't about the McCanns. One Forensic Psychologist made a comment about them. The fury, bile and disgusting accusations that single assessment has unleashed against the person who made it is so shocking and unjust it should be commented on IMO. This is the Justice Forum isn't it?
Sure, comment all you like.
I don't watch television so cannot comment on the programme content.
-
The programme wasn't about the McCanns. One Forensic Psychologist made a comment about them. The fury, bile and disgusting accusations that single assessment has unleashed against the person who made it is so shocking and unjust it should be commented on IMO. This is the Justice Forum isn't it?
Pseudo-emotional codswallop.
Where is this fury, bile & these shocking disgusting accusations against her?
I haven't seen any here.
-
Im not the one moaning about what others say on other forums and bringing it on here.? And thrn asking this is the justice forum isnt it?...so no advice to take.....
The programme was 'advertised' on here by Stephen amongst others. It was not deemed to be 'off topic' and so anyone can comment on it and on the reaction to it by some members of the public imo. What is wrong with that?
-
but what about the alerting in the hire car - isn't the dogs giving cadaver alerts the main crux of the evidence against the parents- - unless we discount the hire car one
also weren't all the bins sealed and checked - sorry I don't have a link to that - I just read it somewhere.
It would certainly be one of the first places I would imagine any searcher who suspected foul play and disposal would check
but it is a theory at least
but what about the alerting in the hire car
Possible cross contamination.
also weren't all the bins sealed and checked
Would they have been checked first thing the following morning while they were searching for a living child who had apparently been taken by Tannerman in one specific direction?
-
Dr Sharon Leal
He's brought out the list of things he must be certain to remember. He won't think that looks suspicious. A liar might believe that that is suspicious. There's been a lot of controversy about whether or not the McCanns are innocent of guilty. From my point of view, is, they are 100% innocent.
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/the-lying-game-crimes-that-fooled-britain/series-1/episode-1-the-lying-game-crimes-that-fooled-britain
He's brought out the list of things he must be certain to remember. He won't think that looks suspicious. A liar might believe that that is suspicious.
So a liar might not believe that is suspicious either then. Clear as mud.
-
Dr Sharon Leal
He's brought out the list of things he must be certain to remember. He won't think that looks suspicious. A liar might believe that that is suspicious. There's been a lot of controversy about whether or not the McCanns are innocent of guilty. From my point of view, is, they are 100% innocent.
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/the-lying-game-crimes-that-fooled-britain/series-1/episode-1-the-lying-game-crimes-that-fooled-britain
He's brought out the list of things he must be certain to remember. He won't think that looks suspicious. A liar might believe that that is suspicious.
So a liar might not believe that is suspicious either then. Clear as mud.
Anyone who talks in absolutes is likely to be talking through a hole in their heard, to be fair. Anyone who says ALL LIARS ACT THIS WAY or INNOCENT PEOPLE ALWAYS DO THIS WITH THEIR HANDS is utterly blind to the complexity of everyday life. Surely you can see that?
I expect you also see that, despite only a short clip being discussed on the show, Dr Leal is likely to have viewed more footage of the McCanns before expressing an opinion.
-
Anyone who talks in absolutes is likely to be talking through a hole in their heard, to be fair. Anyone who says ALL LIARS ACT THIS WAY or INNOCENT PEOPLE ALWAYS DO THIS WITH THEIR HANDS is utterly blind to the complexity of everyday life. Surely you can see that?
I expect you also see that, despite only a short clip being discussed on the show, Dr Leal is likely to have viewed more footage of the McCanns before expressing an opinion.
Dr Leal is likely to have viewed more footage of the McCanns before expressing an opinion.
That is just guess work. However even if she has viewed more footage she may have had the preconcieved idea the McCanns are innocent thus her conclusion would be a confirmation bias. However that could also be confirmation bias.
-
I'm not sure I agree with everything you're proposing here, wonderfulspam - but you have at least posited an explanation. A rarity.
It's incredibly rare for me to post anything even approaching a sensible comment.
Normal service will be resumed shortly.
-
Dr Leal is likely to have viewed more footage of the McCanns before expressing an opinion.
That is just guess work. However even if she has viewed more footage she may have had the preconcieved idea the McCanns are innocent thus her conclusion would be a confirmation bias. However that could also be confirmation bias.
A preconceived idea based on what?
-
was on ITV last night - interviewed various crime experts who study crime and interviews with some high profile cases - Philpots, Matthews etc - all the usual suspects
Anyone watch it ?
I watched with interest the section that concerned the McCanns. Did you notice as the the psychologist claimed they were innocent there was an almost imperceivable shake of her head from side to side ? Interesting !
-
A preconceived idea based on what?
McCann non involvement & 'abduction' has been forced upon the public by the mainstream media for the past 6 years, willingly or otherwise.
Some people are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility of concealing their childs corpse.
I'm not.
-
I watched with interest the section that concerned the McCanns. Did you notice as the the psychologist claimed they were innocent there was an almost imperceivable shake of her head from side to side ? Interesting !
Was it just me or was she micro-blinking with her left eye as well? I think the letters she was trying to spell out in Morse code were L - O - L
Could mean something!
-
Was it just me or was she micro-blinking with her left eye as well? I think the letters she was trying to spell out in Morse code were L - O - L
Could mean something!
ah yes see what you mean - so in fact it was a cunning way to not make a professional point in her opinion regarding how she interpreted the McCann's guilt/non guilt - but to send a message -
very cunning
-
ah yes see what you mean - so in fact it was a cunning way to not make a professional point in her opinion regarding how she interpreted the McCann's guilt/non guilt - but to send a message -
very cunning
More of a subconscious thing, I believe
-
McCann non involvement & 'abduction' has been forced upon the public by the mainstream media for the past 6 years, willingly or otherwise.
Some people are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility of concealing their childs corpse.
I'm not.
if the PJ or SY do have any evidence to back up their involvement then I wish they would get round to it. I would be more than happy to change my views if presented with such scenarios
As such I have yet to see anything that persuades me of How, why, when , where and who etc nada
I appreciate you have presented the she was dumped in a bin theory - it could be true - but I have yet to see anything that would explain why , how and when and of course who
so until then I still lean towards my gut feel that they are innocent in her disposal - and after 6 nearly 7 years I cant see a smoking gun suddenly appearing
-
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/the-lying-game-crimes-that-fooled-britain/series-1/episode-1-the-lying-game-crimes-that-fooled-britain
-
I watched with interest the section that concerned the McCanns. Did you notice as the the psychologist claimed they were innocent there was an almost imperceivable shake of her head from side to side ? Interesting !
Yes using the lie detection techniques she has described it's possible to see she may infact be lying.
-
McCann non involvement & 'abduction' has been forced upon the public by the mainstream media for the past 6 years, willingly or otherwise.
Some people are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility of concealing their childs corpse.
I'm not.
I have contemplated this idea, but there is more to it than just that.
-
I watched some of it. The first question, IMO, was whether the McCanns should have been mentioned at all - but in view of all the publicity surrounding the McCann case and accusations against the McCanns of lying, it would have been difficult to leave them out.
As to the comment on whether the McCanns were lying or not, I could not see how any other statement could be made except that they weren't - can you imagine the uproar if I was stated that they had been lying? Especially in the middle of a police enquiry etc etc
It seemed to me to be a case of not being able to do right for doing wrong equivalent - whatever the programme did or the conclusion presented would raise questions
-
It's incredibly rare for me to post anything even approaching a sensible comment.
Normal service will be resumed shortly.
I realise that the previous comment I made was ambiguous.
I meant that it was a rarity amongst posters in general to volunteer a specific account of what may have happened. Not you specifically..
Sorry for the confusion
-
PS wonderfulspam, your artistic vision is quite something.
Move over Damien Hirst.
-
I realise that the previous comment I made was ambiguous.
I meant that it was a rarity amongst posters in general to volunteer a specific account of what may have happened. Not you specifically..
Sorry for the confusion
Absolutely no offence was taken Sherlock,
It genuinely is unusual for me to post anything of any sense or substance.
I was, as usual, fooling around.
-
Absolutely no offence was taken Sherlock,
It genuinely is unusual for me to post anything of any sense or substance.
I was, as usual, fooling around.
And what an appropriate topic you've chosen for that.
-
Absolutely no offence was taken Sherlock,
It genuinely is unusual for me to post anything of any sense or substance.
I was, as usual, fooling around.
Thanks for your understanding ?{)(**
-
Sounds like a programme well up to ITV's recent journalistic standards 8(>((
-
PS wonderfulspam, your artistic vision is quite something.
Move over Damien Hirst.
Admittedly it is not even remotely pleasent, not much unlike myself ...
But when I place myself mentally in that awful situation, whilst being overcome with the grief of having lost my child, I might be in a state of shock enough to carry out something I might otherwise never have & which some would never even consider.
-
I noticed the programme had manged to inspire some very stupid people with zero self-awareness - yes, they were on facebook - to say some very horrible things about Maxine Carr (which I very much hope ITV get into trouble for).
-
And what an appropriate topic you've chosen for that.
If you read back through the posts you will see my amusement came from....
I'm not sure I agree with everything you're proposing here, wonderfulspam - but you have at least posited an explanation. A rarity.
It's incredibly rare for me to post anything even approaching a sensible comment.
Normal service will be resumed shortly.
And not from the disappearance and probable death of a little girl, as you would like it to have been.
-
Was it just me or was she micro-blinking with her left eye as well? I think the letters she was trying to spell out in Morse code were L - O - L
Could mean something!
I thought the microblinking subliminal message was very interesting...if you slow that section down and play it backwards I think she is saying ROFLMAO..but cant be certain
-
I thought the microblinking subliminal message was very interesting...if you slow that section down and play it backwards I think she is saying ROFLMAO..but cant be certain
That doesn't sound like you @)(++(*
-
Its absolutely hilarious how your attitudes are so entrenched that when she says the McCanns are telling the truth you have to come up with with some explanation, however daft, to show that she didn't actually mean it...quite telling
-
THat doesn't sound like you @)(++(*
good observation...my eyes were moving up and to the left as I typed the message
-
good observation...my eyes were moving up and to the left as I typed the message
As there's no emoticon to indicate when a poster is touching their nose as they type, perhaps this one would do - 8-)(--)
-
Well I think she done that programme on purpose so she could tell fibs about The McCanns coz they paid her to do it.
-
Did they show the psychologist JT's Panorama interview? 8)-)))
-
Did they show the psychologist JT's Panorama interview? 8)-)))
They tried to, but Rupert Murdoch danced the can-can in front of the screen while she was trying to watch so she couldn't see it properly.
-
They tried to, but Rupert Murdoch danced the can-can in front of the screen while she was trying to watch so she couldn't see it properly.
Nah, it was his ex-wife on one of her rants. @)(++(*
-
Blimey. The latest crop of posts are testimony to why courts don't like expert witnesses and don't "do" science. For every EW that says A there is another who will say B. All with enough certificates to paper a wall, not to mention for the most part with a shedful of zealous unchallenged theories. Anyone remember Dr Marietta Higgs?
Forgetting about current personalities ( ie Saints vs Sinners) would you really want to convict or acquit on the basis of how someone held their head or did or did not make a list? It might be a bit of a warning bell to the evidence gatherers but that's about all imho.
Of course TV stations and newspapers are about making money so what ever sells copy an puts bums on seats is fair game.
The skill is in knowing when someone is trying to have you over.
This forum is about justice yes?
-
They tried to, but Rupert Murdoch danced the can-can in front of the screen while she was trying to watch so she couldn't see it properly.
Oh dear Victoria, not fooling around on a forum about a missing child are you. tut tut.
-
Was it just me or was she micro-blinking with her left eye as well? I think the letters she was trying to spell out in Morse code were L - O - L
Could mean something!
ha ha cool 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
Hazell case was solved by a dog
-
I watched, and was shocked & surpised that anyone would mention the McCanns at all. Mostly it covered well documented cases that have been to trial. So, what you had is someone going over the ticks & mannerisms of CONVICTED killers, Dr Martin on McCannfiles also gives a good summary.
The McCanns stood out like a sore thumb, why mention them? Why show the bedraggled first appearance on the evening of the 4th, when they would certainly had made better cannon fodder for discussion a few days later, with the pretty yellow balloon parade, outside the church !!
-
Dr Martin on McCannfiles[/b ...
You mean Nigel Moore?
-
Do police experts ever do body language video analysis of such tv interviews?
-
Hazell case was solved by a dog
The Hazell Case was not solved by a dog. The dog had been in the house twice before without indicating to anything, and by the time it did indicate, everybody could smell it.
-
Blimey. The latest crop of posts are testimony to why courts don't like expert witnesses and don't "do" science. For every EW that says A there is another who will say B. All with enough certificates to paper a wall, not to mention for the most part with a shedful of zealous unchallenged theories. Anyone remember Dr Marietta Higgs?
Forgetting about current personalities ( ie Saints vs Sinners) would you really want to convict or acquit on the basis of how someone held their head or did or did not make a list? It might be a bit of a warning bell to the evidence gatherers but that's about all imho.
Of course TV stations and newspapers are about making money so what ever sells copy an puts bums on seats is fair game.
The skill is in knowing when someone is trying to have you over.
This forum is about justice yes? Well I thought it was but lately it seems to just be lots of trolling and insults sadly.
No you wouldnt thats why we have lie detector tests. I agree with your post.
As I said on a previous post, i have taught communication and someone with good skills can fool anyone, will follow someone with good communication skills and charisma, and a certain amount of arrogance and lots of confidence. Thats why we have [moderated] who can fool loads of people. Jesus was a great communicator and people followed him, the same as Hitler. YOU believe what you want to believe. Who would think 2 DOCTORS would be lying? Its against all that we have been taught about them. Doctors in this country have a lot of power I think. I dont know why. I have been constantly LIED to by Doctors so I have no fear of them lol.
Some people may be lying but have convinced themselves they are telling the truth, to the point of believing it 100 percent.
I have found with several of the guilty people lately on the T.V. one is the confident communicator and the other one tends to sit quietly looking away, or down or fidgeting. Phillpots are a good example. Also if you look at a lot of the McCann tapes its usually GM that leads the discussions..he is a good communicator and quite a bit scary too lol. Not that any of that makes them guilty of anything.
Anyway i never watched the programme theres a much better one I like to watch called LIE TO ME, which is another great piece of fiction.
I am shocked how much sniping is going on this thread, it leaves a funny taste in the mouth.
NON of it is going to find the child.
Perhaps its time for a break from the case as its got to the stage of personal insults constantly. I forget sometimes what the thread is about lol.
-
I watched it on catch up last night and thought "What a load of old .......", Real crimes did a similar programme a while ago (Crocodile Tears) and another programme called 'Tears, lies and video tape'. It's extremely easy to say "Yeah, his body language gave them away" AFTER they went to trial and got found guilty, they never show cases where they say "Well, I'd have said guilty but they proved me wrong, do they?"-no because it's slander.
-
I watched it on catch up last night and thought "What a load of old .......", Real crimes did a similar programme a while ago (Crocodile Tears) and another programme called 'Tears, lies and video tape'. It's extremely easy to say "Yeah, his body language gave them away" AFTER they went to trial and got found guilty, they never show cases where they say "Well, I'd have said guilty but they proved me wrong, do they?"-no because it's slander.
WISH WE HAD A LIKE BUTTON. I totally agree with you. 8@??)(
-
The Hazell Case was not solved by a dog. The dog had been in the house twice before without indicating to anything, and by the time it did indicate, everybody could smell it.
Beg to differ on that Eleanor. Karly alerted on the Wednesday towards the ceiling and officers were deployed into the attic as funnily enough dogs are unable to be trained to walk on joists. The officers did not find anything at that time. Further alerts on Friday and a second check in the attic eventually led them to find poor Tia's body.
An apology was issued blaming human error for not finding Tia. http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/TIA-SHARP-Met-officers-missed-schoolgirl-s-body/story-17372278-detail/story.html
The dog, Karly alerted to the scent if death on the Wednesday, it was humans who failed to find her.
If you are on Twitter, all of this can be verified with the handler @Chappers2013
-
I'm afraid all that Sharon Leal says should be taken with a pinch of salt. Leal loses all credibility when considering the bias of the piece. Shine the company who made the programme is part of Murdoch empire being run by Elisabeth Murdoch who is married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell worked/works as a consultant for Freud Communications. Murdoch's father in law Clement Freud also invited the McCanns over to dinner in 2007. Sharon Leal also a fellow at the University of Portsmouth where the Centre for the Study of Missing Persons is based headed up by Jo Youle who is also CEO of Missing People who are working in partnership with CSMP and for which Kate McCann is an Ambassador.
I understand a number of people wrote to Sharon Leal after the programme and she has responded as follows to one of those who wrote to her. There was no disclaimer preventing reposting and the person who received the email has posted it on a facebook group.
''I am very well acquainted with the case and I totally disagree that there is "plenty of evidence to say the opposite" ! Unfortunately irresponsible and heartless news reporters made up claims that were simply not true. Despite the fact that these people even admit they told lies ( see for example Leveson enquiry) the rubbish they Initially wrote is what seems to stay in some peoples minds( in psychology we call this ' belief perseverance effect' ) . That , coupled with a Portuguese policeman who has an axe to grind ( because he was sacked for telling lies to the press about the enquiry) still spouting nonsense has not helped. As I said in the program , people also tend to look for the wrong signs when detecting deception. An innocent person who is upset and falsely accused WILL react with nervous/ emotional behaviour. If you can try and think of any time you have been wrongly accused of something , how did you feel?
I have formed my opinion that they are innocent based on the verifiable facts surrounding the case, rather than media conjecture. I am aware this is a contentious case and as such you are not the only person to contact me ; some have cited or attached what they mistakingly believe to be facts ( i.e. that non verbal displays indicate guilt or citing libellous press reports or anecdotal social network lies) .
Best Wishes,
Sharon Leal'
So having read the above do we really think her 'reading' of the Mccanns was totally unbiased?
There is also a certain irony in that at the point in the programme where she declares the McCanns 100% innocent, she tried very hard not to but she definitely shakes her head...
-
I'm afraid all that Sharon Leal says should be taken with a pinch of salt. Leal loses all credibility when considering the bias of the piece. Shine the company who made the programme is part of Murdoch empire being run by Elisabeth Murdoch who is married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell worked/works as a consultant for Freud Communications. Murdoch's father in law Clement Freud also invited the McCanns over to dinner in 2007. Sharon Leal also a fellow at the University of Portsmouth where the Centre for the Study of Missing Persons is based headed up by Jo Youle who is also CEO of Missing People who are working in partnership with CSMP and for which Kate McCann is an Ambassador.
I understand a number of people wrote to Sharon Leal after the programme and she has responded as follows to one of those who wrote to her. There was no disclaimer preventing reposting and the person who received the email has posted it on a facebook group.
''I am very well acquainted with the case and I totally disagree that there is "plenty of evidence to say the opposite" ! Unfortunately irresponsible and heartless news reporters made up claims that were simply not true. Despite the fact that these people even admit they told lies ( see for example Leveson enquiry) the rubbish they Initially wrote is what seems to stay in some peoples minds( in psychology we call this ' belief perseverance effect' ) . That , coupled with a Portuguese policeman who has an axe to grind ( because he was sacked for telling lies to the press about the enquiry) still spouting nonsense has not helped. As I said in the program , people also tend to look for the wrong signs when detecting deception. An innocent person who is upset and falsely accused WILL react with nervous/ emotional behaviour. If you can try and think of any time you have been wrongly accused of something , how did you feel?
I have formed my opinion that they are innocent based on the verifiable facts surrounding the case, rather than media conjecture. I am aware this is a contentious case and as such you are not the only person to contact me ; some have cited or attached what they mistakingly believe to be facts ( i.e. that non verbal displays indicate guilt or citing libellous press reports or anecdotal social network lies) .
Best Wishes,
Sharon Leal'
So having read the above do we really think her 'reading' of the Mccanns was totally unbiased?
There is also a certain irony in that at the point in the programme where she declares the McCanns 100% innocent, she tried very hard not to but she definitely shakes her head...
It sounds like a response from someone who's already fed up with being hounded by internet weirdos, to be honest.
-
I'm afraid all that Sharon Leal says should be taken with a pinch of salt. Leal loses all credibility when considering the bias of the piece. Shine the company who made the programme is part of Murdoch empire being run by Elisabeth Murdoch who is married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell worked/works as a consultant for Freud Communications. Murdoch's father in law Clement Freud also invited the McCanns over to dinner in 2007. Sharon Leal also a fellow at the University of Portsmouth where the Centre for the Study of Missing Persons is based headed up by Jo Youle who is also CEO of Missing People who are working in partnership with CSMP and for which Kate McCann is an Ambassador.
I understand a number of people wrote to Sharon Leal after the programme and she has responded as follows to one of those who wrote to her. There was no disclaimer preventing reposting and the person who received the email has posted it on a facebook group.
''I am very well acquainted with the case and I totally disagree that there is "plenty of evidence to say the opposite" ! Unfortunately irresponsible and heartless news reporters made up claims that were simply not true. Despite the fact that these people even admit they told lies ( see for example Leveson enquiry) the rubbish they Initially wrote is what seems to stay in some peoples minds( in psychology we call this ' belief perseverance effect' ) . That , coupled with a Portuguese policeman who has an axe to grind ( because he was sacked for telling lies to the press about the enquiry) still spouting nonsense has not helped. As I said in the program , people also tend to look for the wrong signs when detecting deception. An innocent person who is upset and falsely accused WILL react with nervous/ emotional behaviour. If you can try and think of any time you have been wrongly accused of something , how did you feel?
I have formed my opinion that they are innocent based on the verifiable facts surrounding the case, rather than media conjecture. I am aware this is a contentious case and as such you are not the only person to contact me ; some have cited or attached what they mistakingly believe to be facts ( i.e. that non verbal displays indicate guilt or citing libellous press reports or anecdotal social network lies) .
Best Wishes,
Sharon Leal'
So having read the above do we really think her 'reading' of the Mccanns was totally unbiased?
There is also a certain irony in that at the point in the programme where she declares the McCanns 100% innocent, she tried very hard not to but she definitely shakes her head...
Oh my, very very biased indeed......good for " a scientist"...Thanks for that Serendipity and agree wth your last sentence.....talk about an own goal lol?...plus its so obvious from that response th only place she has got her info from IS the papers...hardly objective
8((()*/
Eta I still think it was bizarre to mention them in that mickey mouse programme
-
So having read the above do we really think her 'reading' of the Mccanns was totally unbiased?
There is also a certain irony in that at the point in the programme where she declares the McCanns 100% innocent, she tried very hard not to but she definitely shakes her head...
response to Serendipity - so do you think she is deliberately lying in the film ? , and doesn't think they are innocent. ? That is the only explanation I can deduce from your remark regarding the " tell "
-
It sounds like a response from someone who's already fed up with being hounded by internet weirdos, to be honest.
[/quote.
It sounds like a perfectly logical and informed reply to me.
-
Beg to differ on that Eleanor. Karly alerted on the Wednesday towards the ceiling and officers were deployed into the attic as funnily enough dogs are unable to be trained to walk on joists. The officers did not find anything at that time. Further alerts on Friday and a second check in the attic eventually led them to find poor Tia's body.
An apology was issued blaming human error for not finding Tia. http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/TIA-SHARP-Met-officers-missed-schoolgirl-s-body/story-17372278-detail/story.html
The dog, Karly alerted to the scent if death on the Wednesday, it was humans who failed to find her.
If you are on Twitter, all of this can be verified with the handler @Chappers2013
Yes i knew about the dog indicating towards the ceiling. Perhaps Karly thought there was some pork up there.....
Lazy policing. I think the police did mnot take the dog seriosly enough and just did a coursery check and did not go into the attic properly. Perhaps he was scared of bats.
The dogs never lie its only humans who do that.
-
I'm afraid all that Sharon Leal says should be taken with a pinch of salt. Leal loses all credibility when considering the bias of the piece. Shine the company who made the programme is part of Murdoch empire being run by Elisabeth Murdoch who is married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell worked/works as a consultant for Freud Communications. Murdoch's father in law Clement Freud also invited the McCanns over to dinner in 2007. Sharon Leal also a fellow at the University of Portsmouth where the Centre for the Study of Missing Persons is based headed up by Jo Youle who is also CEO of Missing People who are working in partnership with CSMP and for which Kate McCann is an Ambassador.
I understand a number of people wrote to Sharon Leal after the programme and she has responded as follows to one of those who wrote to her. There was no disclaimer preventing reposting and the person who received the email has posted it on a facebook group.
''I am very well acquainted with the case and I totally disagree that there is "plenty of evidence to say the opposite" ! Unfortunately irresponsible and heartless news reporters made up claims that were simply not true. Despite the fact that these people even admit they told lies ( see for example Leveson enquiry) the rubbish they Initially wrote is what seems to stay in some peoples minds( in psychology we call this ' belief perseverance effect' ) . That , coupled with a Portuguese policeman who has an axe to grind ( because he was sacked for telling lies to the press about the enquiry) still spouting nonsense has not helped. As I said in the program , people also tend to look for the wrong signs when detecting deception. An innocent person who is upset and falsely accused WILL react with nervous/ emotional behaviour. If you can try and think of any time you have been wrongly accused of something , how did you feel?
I have formed my opinion that they are innocent based on the verifiable facts surrounding the case, rather than media conjecture. I am aware this is a contentious case and as such you are not the only person to contact me ; some have cited or attached what they mistakingly believe to be facts ( i.e. that non verbal displays indicate guilt or citing libellous press reports or anecdotal social network lies) .
Best Wishes,
Sharon Leal'
So having read the above do we really think her 'reading' of the Mccanns was totally unbiased?
There is also a certain irony in that at the point in the programme where she declares the McCanns 100% innocent, she tried very hard not to but she definitely shakes her head...
lol really unbiased. Anyway i never watched it couldnt see the point to it.
It achieved what exactly ?
-
lol really unbiased. Anyway i never watched it couldnt see the point to it.
It achieved what exactly ?
Good question, nothing....it was a hotchpot of not much at all...itv is good for police dramas, lorraine kelly show, jeremy kyle, coronation street and the like....NOT any kind of serious journalism/documenataries....although I like alastair stewart in itv news at ten...thats about it