The Lying Game: Crimes That Fooled Britain .

[ferryman]

Dr Martin on McCannfiles[/b ...

You mean Nigel Moore?

[pegasus]

Do police experts ever do body language video analysis of such tv interviews?

[Eleanor]

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.

[colombosstogey]

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.

[Joanne]

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.

[colombosstogey]

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. 

[Serendipity]

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

[Serendipity]

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...

[Victoria]

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.

[Redblossom]

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

 

Eta I still think  it was bizarre to mention them in that mickey mouse programme

[south of the river]

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 "

[Eleanor]

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.

[colombosstogey]

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.

[colombosstogey]

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 ?

[Redblossom]

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