Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[Alfred R Jones]

If you have any evidence of them being around 50:50, please post it.  It would be the type of eye opener I thoroughly enjoy.

I go down the road of trying hard, with aforethought, to make sure my kids and grandkids get the best I can provide for them.

The twins deserve the same.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work

[ShiningInLuz]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work

Thank you for this, and I genuinely mean thank you.

I hope you will not be offended if on this occasion I chose not to accept the link.

The article may, or may not, be well informed.  My life is too short to run with the views of the Human Beast, aka Nigel Barber.

I trust you will take that I mean no offence in this.

[Alfred R Jones]

Thank you for this, and I genuinely mean thank you.

I hope you will not be offended if on this occasion I chose not to accept the link.

The article may, or may not, be well informed.  My life is too short to run with the views of the Human Beast, aka Nigel Barber.

I trust you will take that I mean no offence in this.

How about you let me know what sources you do find acceptable and we"'ll proceed from there.

[ShiningInLuz]

How about you let me know what sources you do find acceptable and we"'ll proceed from there.

Now that is an interesting test, is it not?  One genuinely worthy of consideration?

I tend to think of Wikipedia as a starter on 1 out of 10.  Good intro to a the general subject. Not one I would like to rely on in a crunch.

It is difficult to define what is out, simply because there is so much that is out.  Tabloids.  Conspiracy forums.

Hmm, does my blog pass this acid test?  I'm not sure that it does.

Could we try a simpler test?  Is there anything more convincing than the Human Beast on this topic?  Or are we reliant on the Human Beast?

[Alfred R Jones]

Now that is an interesting test, is it not?  One genuinely worthy of consideration?

I tend to think of Wikipedia as a starter on 1 out of 10.  Good intro to a the general subject. Not one I would like to rely on in a crunch.

It is difficult to define what is out, simply because there is so much that is out.  Tabloids.  Conspiracy forums.

Hmm, does my blog pass this acid test?  I'm not sure that it does.

Could we try a simpler test?  Is there anything more convincing than the Human Beast on this topic?  Or are we reliant on the Human Beast?

Can I ask what is your primary objection to Nigel Barber Phd as a source on the subject?  Is it simply the name he goes by that undermines his credibility in your eyes?  I fear anyone I cite on this matter will fail to live up to your high standards unless it is someone extolling the virtues of the polygraph...

[G-Unit]

That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?

How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.



Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm

At the time Gamble did the scoping study he was very involved in the case, and had been from very early on. However, the scoping study didn't look at any evidence' just at the feasibility of the Met. conducting a review of a case which was so far outside their jurisdiction.

[ShiningInLuz]

Can I ask what is your primary objection to Nigel Barber Phd as a source on the subject?  Is it simply the name he goes by that undermines his credibility in your eyes?  I fear anyone I cite on this matter will fail to live up to your high standards unless it is someone extolling the virtues of the polygraph...

No, as I have made clear, you have raised a question that I consider to be valid and worthy of consideration.

I do not have a valid or considered response to give you at this moment in time.

I could give you an unconsidered response, which would do no one any favours.

So I need to go off and consider your interesting point until such time as I can formulate a considered reply.

Considering over here boss (misquote from Cool Hand Luke?)

[Alfred R Jones]

No, as I have made clear, you have raised a question that I consider to be valid and worthy of consideration.

I do not have a valid or considered response to give you at this moment in time.

I could give you an unconsidered response, which would do no one any favours.

So I need to go off and consider your interesting point until such time as I can formulate a considered reply.

Considering over here boss (misquote from Cool Hand Luke?)

ok, here is a more up to date article that you might want to read prior to formulating your next considered reply. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/04/british-dutch-researchers-new-form-lie-detector-test-polygraph. Admittedly it's only in the Guardian so may not cut the mustard in terms of credibility...

[G-Unit]

do you not realise you have already posted it yourself

Your quote didn't appear in that video, if that's what you're referring to. You had some of the words but not in the right order. You appear to have no quote you can cite to support what you posted as a fact. Isn't that against the rules?

This is what you posted in post 326 this morning;

Redwood said..

as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Here's what he actually said. Can you spot the difference?

 it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/60april12/ITV1_27_04_2012.htm

[ShiningInLuz]

ok, here is a more up to date article that you might want to read prior to formulating your next considered reply. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/04/british-dutch-researchers-new-form-lie-detector-test-polygraph. Admittedly it's only in the Guardian so may not cut the mustard in terms of credibility...

I have stated in plain and simple English that you have raised a point I consider to be both valid and interesting.

I am not interested in participating in a game of pong on this point.  I judge it to be too important.

I happen to be an introvert.  This simply means that when something challenging occurs, I prefer to go inside, and run it through my checks and balances until I can work out the sense in it.

Perhaps you are an extrovert.  This simply means someone whose preferred method of dealing with an important occasion is to ping it back and forth across other humans.

If this is the case, I wish you well.  I do not and cannot work in such a manner.

Your point is valid.  Your point is interesting, at least IMO.  I happen to think your point is very, very important.  I really, really need to think things through.

It's not the lie detector bit, though I shall definitely investigate that angle.

What you have raised is much more important.  How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable?

[Alice Purjorick]

 http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847&page=1

"Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association. "Many people refer to polygraph tests as lie detector tests, and that's a bit of a misnomer.

"Legal Controversy

Because of ongoing debate on the accuracy of polygraphs, they are banned from being admitted as evidence into some courts and even the mention of a polygraph exam in testimony can cause a mistrial. However, according to the American Polygraph Association, polygraph exams are allowed in 26 states and some federal courts.

However, since the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of polygraph admissibility, rules in federal circuits vary. In some courts, a polygraph test can only be admitted if both parties agree. In some court jurisdictions, a judge determines admissibility and whether polygraph test results will help a jury with its decision".

Well it's more entertaining than waiting for a convincing framework for an abduction I suppose 

[stephen25000]

That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?

How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.



Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm

How dare I impugn  Gamble ?

You gave your opinion, I gave mine.

So get over it.

Gamble has virtually rolled over on his back in his support of the mccanns since that time and anyone can see his views on the case.

He has done nothing but try to whitewash the mccanns.

Would you care to remind us what gamble said about Robert Murat ?

[misty]

Have people forgotten this article?

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

*snipped*

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund. A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I have stated in plain and simple English that you have raised a point I consider to be both valid and interesting.

I am not interested in participating in a game of pong on this point.  I judge it to be too important.

I happen to be an introvert.  This simply means that when something challenging occurs, I prefer to go inside, and run it through my checks and balances until I can work out the sense in it.

Perhaps you are an extrovert.  This simply means someone whose preferred method of dealing with an important occasion is to ping it back and forth across other humans.

If this is the case, I wish you well.  I do not and cannot work in such a manner.

Your point is valid.  Your point is interesting, at least IMO.  I happen to think your point is very, very important.  I really, really need to think things through.

It's not the lie detector bit, though I shall definitely investigate that angle.

What you have raised is much more important.  How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable?

How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable
An important question
How does someone assess the reliability of evidence
Similar question
It is a skill.... Some of us have learnt this skill through our professional careers
I would count myself as one of them

[Brietta]

How dare I impugn  Gamble ?

You gave your opinion, I gave mine.

So get over it.

Gamble has virtually rolled over on his back in his support of the mccanns since that time and anyone can see his views on the case.

He has done nothing but try to whitewash the mccanns.

Would you care to remind us what gamble said about Robert Murat ?

I care to remind you that the Drs McCann enjoy the right to the presumption of innocence.  If you wish to remind members of something which has caught your attention ... feel free to share, that is what constitutes all that is best about a discussion forum.


**Snip
Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?

JIM GAMBLE, FMR HEAD, CHILD PROTECTION CENTRE (CEOP): If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Why do you say that?

JIM GAMBLE: Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would – they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access.

But having been involved in the periphery to a greater or lesser degree on different occasions with this case, having met the McCanns, (** which Mr Amaral neglected to do **) having seen their children Sean and Amelie around them, I just would be shocked. There’s nothing which gives me that feeling; there’s no evidence which makes me feel that they are in any way complicit in the disappearance. But I’m a human being, you know, and we can err. I’m simply saying that I would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved in any way in this.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm

** words in blue are mine