The question of the polygraph?

[AnneGuedes]

No, it hasn't backfired on them,they didn't lie & they didn't refuse to take a lie detector test.

How do you know "they didn't lie" ? I thought Mr Mitchell had the privilege to know this and state it.

[Redblossom]

someone set limits  on the lie detector test..... Unprecedented
 

[John]

The question of the polygraph is a new thread spun off from another topic.

[Carana]

From the article that Faithlilly posted:

But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.

Mr Cargill, official lie detector expert on TV's Trisha Goddard TV show, said: "I spoke to the McCanns' people and they came back with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy.

"They wanted me to prove the test would be 100 per cent accurate, that I was the world's best examiner and that it would be admissible in a Portuguese court – but I could not guarantee any of those things. Although polygraph testing is very accurate, it is not infallible."

Lie detectors work by measuring physiological responses such as blood pressure levels, pulse rate, breathing and sweat gland activity in the skin during questioning.

Any significant difference in these rates as the subject answers may indicate they are lying.


From a different article:



The bosses of two companies that conduct lie detector tests for TV chat shows are set for a High Court battle - over which one is lying.

Bruce Burgess, who conducts polygraph tests for The Jeremy Kyle Show, is suing Don Cargill, whose company is used by rival programme The Trisha Goddard Show, for defamation.

The argument between Mr Burgess's Distress Services and Cargill's Nadac Group started last year after an episode of Trisha's show on which a woman was accused of stealing a £38,000 watch.


Dispute: A polygraph on Trisha Goddard's show was queried and retested by a  Bruce Burgess, who conducts polygraphs for The Jeremy Kyle Show, and came up with a different result
Betty Hipson, 57 , appeared on the show determined to prove her innocence after her family accused her of stealing the Rolex.

Cargill's polygraph test found that she was lying but , undeterred, the Leatherhead grandmother approached Burgess's company for a second test, which found her innocent.

Mrs Hipson complained to Ofcom about the findings of the test used on the Trisha show.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1091578/Jeremy-Kyle-Trisha-war-lie-detector-test-Polygraph-experts-set-court-battle-decide-fibbing.html#ixzz2WS7ZkFoN

[stephen25000]

Lie Detectors have anaccuracy of just over 96%.

The results are not admissible in court.

The Mccanns offered to take one, then backed out, with words to the effect they are unreliable.

In the words of Gerry Mccann..........

''Ask the dogs Sandra''

[Carana]

Lie Detectors have anaccuracy of just over 96%.

The results are not admissible in court.

The Mccanns offered to take one, then backed out, with words to the effect they are unreliable.

In the words of Gerry Mccann..........

''Ask the dogs Sandra''

Well I find it odd that one company found that the woman in the case above was lying and the other found that she wasn't.

Which one was having a 4% bad-hair day?

[stephen25000]

Well I find it odd that one company found that the woman in the case above was lying and the other found that she wasn't.

Which one was having a 4% bad-hair day?

Not sufficient evidence to say lie detectors don't work.

1 'case' means nothing.

and if the mccanns think they have no value . rather like their opinion of the dogs,though of course the police worldwide say different, why did they back out ?

[Carana]

Not sufficient evidence to say lie detectors don't work.

1 'case' means nothing.

and if the mccanns think they have no value . rather like their opinion of the dogs,yhough of course the police worldwide say different, why did they back out ?

The police worldwide?

Europe

In most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence and are not generally used by law enforcement. Courts themselves do not order nor facilitate polygraph testing. In most cases, polygraph tests are voluntarily taken by a defendant in order to substantiate his or her defense.

The Federal Court of Justice of Germany has ruled that polygraph evidence is inherently inconclusive and not admissible in court. Motions by prosecution or defense for polygraph tests to be exercised will be declined under any circumstance.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#cite_note-33

[stephen25000]

The police worldwide?

Europe

In most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence and are not generally used by law enforcement. Courts themselves do not order nor facilitate polygraph testing. In most cases, polygraph tests are voluntarily taken by a defendant in order to substantiate his or her defense.

The Federal Court of Justice of Germany has ruled that polygraph evidence is inherently inconclusive and not admissible in court. Motions by prosecution or defense for polygraph tests to be exercised will be declined under any circumstance.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#cite_note-33

I know that already.

Lie detectors are reliable but not normally admissible in courts. They are in some American courts if the judge deems it of relevance.

So why are you and the Mccanns afraid of lie detectors Carana ? >@@(*&)

[Carana]

I know that already.

Lie detectors are reliable but not normally admissible in courts. They are in some American courts if the judge deems it of relevance.

So why are you and the Mccanns afraid of lie detectors Carana ? >@@(*&)

The PJ never asked them to take one.

[stephen25000]

The PJ never asked them to take one.

They volunteered to take one, then backed out. >@@(*&)

[Eleanor]

This is pathetic.  The McCanns don't have to do anything they don't want to do, or answer any questions they don't want to answer. Whether or not people believe them is entirely irrelevant.  They have been charged with nothing and found guilty of nothing.
Scotland Yard are now actively Investigating the disappearance of their daughter which is what they have always wanted, so they have a lot to be hopeful about.
A Lie Detector Test was always pointless because it would prove nothing.

[stephen25000]

This is pathetic.  The McCanns don't have to do anything they don't want to do, or answer any questions they don't want to answer. Whether or not people believe them is entirely irrelevant.  They have been charged with nothing and found guilty of nothing.
Scotland Yard are now actively Investigating the disappearance of their daughter which is what they have always wanted, so they have a lot to be hopeful about.
A Lie Detector Test was always pointless because it would prove nothing.

They haven't been found guilty ELEANOR, AS THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED.

The case was shelved, in case you need reminding, pending new evidence.

The Mccanns volunteered to take a lie detector test and then backed out. See Mitchell's word on that.

As to having anything to answer for, they most certainly have. Their negligence of 3 children led to the 'disappearance Madeleine.

[Chinagirl]

There was no negligence, and it is certainly unproven that leaving the children between checks had any bearing on Madeleine's abduction.

[Eleanor]

They haven't been found guilty ELEANOR, AS THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED.

The case was shelved, in case you need reminding, pending new evidence.

The Mccanns volunteered to take a lie detector test and then backed out. See Mitchell's word on that.

As to having anything to answer for, they most certainly have. Their negligence of 3 children led to the 'disappearance Madeleine.

The Rule of Law doesn't appear to agree with you.