The question of the polygraph?

[G-Unit]

It wouldn't refocus the investigation.  The McCanns are innocent and Scotland Yard knows this.

I have seen no statement by Scotland Yard saying that the McCanns are innocent?

[Mr Gray]

I have seen no statement by Scotland Yard saying that the McCanns are innocent?

we have seen a statement saying they are not suspects

[Mr Gray]

I know nothing about polygraphs but I do know that lying is a complex matter. As I said on another thread, [moderated]s pick their victims with care and they target those who want to believe. Similarly the wife who wants to believe her husband is faithful will ignore evidence to the contrary until it becomes too much. Lying to large groups such as TV audiences is more difficult because the audience is unknown. Politicians are often trained to avoid direct lying for that reason. They learn how to give ambiguous answers and how to answer the question they want to answer rather than the one asked. A polygraph operator would ask direct questions and wouldn't accept diversion, so much more difficult to deal with imo. Innocent or guilty it's too much of a risk.

I've done some research...there isn't a lot to know about polygraphs...this article is interesting....

The county prosecutors offered Buzz a deal: they would drop all charges if he agreed to take a polygraph – a lie detector test – to prove his innocence. Convinced the whole episode was one big mistake, Buzz readily agreed. He took two tests but both suggested he was lying about his innocence. This, along with circumstantial evidence, sealed his 1979 conviction and he spent two-and-a-half years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

During his time in prison, Buzz studied the polygraph. He sent his results to a number of experts but received wildly different interpretations. Determined to show the test was fallible, he developed a training exercise to help people fool the lie detector and after just 15 minutes of instruction, 23 out of 27 inmates beat the polygraph. Buzz was eventually exonerated, helped by the testimony of the real killer's mother, and his case has become one of the most notorious episodes in the history of the technology.


so 23 out of 27 beat the polygraph...that's unreliable in anyone's book

[faithlilly]

It wouldn't refocus the investigation.  The McCanns are innocent and Scotland Yard knows this.

We are not talking about now Eleanor but then when the McCanns were firmly in the spotlight and there was rather more chance of their daughter being alive.

[Jean-Pierre]

We are not talking about now Eleanor but then when the McCanns were firmly in the spotlight.

Fair enough Faith.

But to my mind there are no circumstances where taking a polygraph could help.  The police are perfectly aware of the shortcomings of the technique, and it is only ever used as a device to put pressure on uninformed suspects. 

[Eleanor]

We are not talking about now Eleanor but then when the McCanns were firmly in the spotlight and there was rather more chance of their daughter being alive.

There is no logic to this.  If The McCanns were responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine then they would probably have failed the test. In which case how would it have helped them?

Or are you saying that The McCanns were obligated to prove their innocence by taking a test that is less than reliable?

[John]

Fair enough Faith.

But to my mind there are no circumstances where taking a polygraph could help.  The police are perfectly aware of the shortcomings of the technique, and it is only ever used as a device to put pressure on uninformed suspects.

That's right Jean-Pierre, and that is what happened in Adrian Prouts case.  The only reason Adrian admitted to the murder of his wife and thereafter led police to where he buried her was because he failed the polygraph.  He could have just as easily passed the polygraph had he not been so nervous on the day.

[faithlilly]

There is no logic to this.  If The McCanns were responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine then they would probably have failed the test. In which case how would it have helped them?

Or are you saying that The McCanns were obligated to prove their innocence by taking a test that is less than reliable?

I'm not saying the McCanns were obligated to do anything . What I am saying is that if the McCanns were truly innocent taking a polygraph may have helped to rule them out of any part in Madeleine's disappearance and refocus the investigation on the real protagonists. At the very least it may have solidied their innocence in the public's mind and neutralised the damage to the search they claim was caused by Amaral's book.

Of course there was a slight risk that the polygraph would be wrong but if I was the parent of a missing child and I knew she may be out there somewhere waiting to be found it's certainly a chance I'd be willing to take.

[Eleanor]

I'm not saying the McCanns were obligated to do anything . What I am saying is that if the McCanns were truly innocent taking a polygraph may have helped to rule them out of any part in Madeleine's disappearance and refocus the investigation on the real protagonists. At the very least it may have solidied their innocence in the public's mind and neutralised the damage to the search they claim was caused by Amaral's book.

Of course there was a slight risk that the polygraph was wrong but if I was the parent of a missing child and I knew she may be out there somewhere waiting to be found it's certainly a chance I'd e willing to take.

Sorry, I can't go along with the need to take a polygraph before The Police do their job properly, or to stop a bunch of s..m bags on The Internet telling outrageous lies.
And it would likely have been another chapter in Amaral's Book.  "How to Beat a Polygraph."  He is bound to know how that can be done.

[pathfinder73]

That's right Jean-Pierre, and that is what happened in Adrian Prouts case.  The only reason Adrian admitted to the murder of his wife and thereafter led police to where he buried her was because he failed the polygraph.  He could have just as easily passed the polygraph had he not been so nervous on the day.

That's the chance you take if you can get somebody to confess. It's a tactic as suspects reveal more on a lie detector than a normal interview.

Police trial lie detector tests on suspected sex offenders
Hertfordshire force hails success of polygraphs in assessing risk to children of 25 'low-level' sexual offenders

Suspected sex offenders have been targeted with lie detector tests in a police trial to gauge the risk they pose to the public.

Hertfordshire police has been using polygraphs, which monitor heart rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning to help decide whether to charge suspects.

The force confirmed it had completed a successful pilot scheme in November in which 25 "low level" sex offenders were tested. Many were found to pose a higher risk to children than previously estimated. A further 12-month trial is expected to start in April.

Of the 10 offenders tested in April, six revealed more serious offending. Testing ended so further inquiries could take place, according to the Times. Of the other four, two revealed offences, thus passing the test, and received cautions and attended a sexual offender treatment programme.

The last two made disclosures and passed the test but refused to admit the offences when interviewed later. Their cases went to court. All four were placed on the sex offenders register.

Of the 15 offenders tested in November, eight failed while six passed. One was caught trying to beat the polygraph, breathing erratically and talking slowly.

Detective Chief Inspector Glen Channer, head of Hertfordshire's child protection unit, said the polygraph was an "added weapon in our armoury of investigative techniques". He said the tests were carried out by accredited practitioners in a scientific environment and were not relied upon on their own.

Hertfordshire police said : "The testing is undertaken ahead of any charges being brought and involves specialist officers from the constabulary's paedophile unit working with an expert who conducts the test on first-time offenders who have volunteered to co-operate with police. Evidence elicited during the examinations is not admissible at court."

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) cautioned that the tests were at a very early stage. A spokesman said: "Polygraph techniques are complex and are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured interrogation.

"These initial trials are in their very early stages and we will follow their progress, working with chief officers across the country to provide further guidance if necessary.

"Whether these techniques are adopted elsewhere in the country is a matter for individual chief constables."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/31/police-trial-lie-detector-tests

[John]

I'm not saying the McCanns were obligated to do anything . What I am saying is that if the McCanns were truly innocent taking a polygraph may have helped to rule them out of any part in Madeleine's disappearance and refocus the investigation on the real protagonists. At the very least it may have solidified their innocence in the public's mind and neutralised the damage to the search they claim was caused by Amaral's book.

Of course there was a slight risk that the polygraph would be wrong but if I was the parent of a missing child and I knew she may be out there somewhere waiting to be found it's certainly a chance I'd be willing to take.

I don't agree Faith, a failure by one or both of them could just as easily made things so much worse for them.  Polygraphs are only fit for entertainment purposes, they have no place within a justice system.

In relation to the sex offenders trial as posted by Pathfinder above, the only reason they are getting results is because subjects ARE AFRAID TO LIE.  Most are not aware that the polygraph is basically just a TOY.  It is indeed a weapon in the same way as putting a loaded gun to ones head is.

[Jean-Pierre]

I don't agree Faith, a failure by one or both of them could just as easily made things so much worse for them.  Polygraphs are only fit for entertainment purposes, they have no place within a justice system.

In relation to the sex offenders trial, the only reason they are getting results is because subjects ARE AFRAID TO LIE.  Most are not aware that the polygraph is basically just a TOY.

Good heavens John - we agree about something. 

[John]

Good heavens John - we agree about something. 

If the same person were tested say six times over a six month period, I guarantee there will be both fails and passes.  As far as polygraph results are concerned, they are more dangerous than helpful.

[Alfred R Jones]

I have no "problem" with what you have written at all.
I find it funny in both senses of the word and cannot take it seriously.

Great, then perhaps you can tell me what it is you find so funny (in both sense of the word) about it.

[stephen25000]

I wonder if anyone on here would like to admit to having taken a polygraph ?