Kate & Gerry McCann

I would because polygraph tests are about as scientific as homeopathy. Even the * Yanks don't allow them to be used in court

 

.

WHY ????

 

.
A 'successful' polygraph result would convince the vast majority of their doubters that the McCans were NOT complicit in the crime - or cover-up. DON'T they CARE that 80% of the informed population believe that they are guilty of that terrible crime ????

It is criminal that the British public is spending millions of £s looking for Maddie, when her parents are too arrogant to submit to a polygraph.

 

.

Sure. Refusing to take a polygraph is not PROOF of guilt, but it is a very strong INDICATION of guilt.

What possible advantage could an innocent person gain by refusing to take a polygraph, which - if they 'passed' - would be a huge indication of their innocence, and if they failed, was inadmissable in court: anyway ?

 

.

No.

In America, Defence Lawyers OFTEN have their clients tested privatly, because if the clients 'pass' the test, it is a massive boost to their case. (Obviously, if the results are unfavourable to their client, they just keep quits about it.)

 

This isn’t America or Jeremy Kyle mate.

Calm it.

 

.

A polygraph cannot 'decide one's fate' because it is not acceptable in law. A polygraph is a strong indicator of the presence or absence of deception, but is not infallible.

The question is, do you WANT that indication or not.

(And if NOT; WHY not ?)

 

Polygraph tests are inadmissable in American courts, so taking the test would be an absolute waste of time

 

and that's key to why they have not done it.

 

I am in the "something fishy" group, but I totally understand why an innocent person would refuse a polygraph.

Polygraphs are fallible, simple as.

It might not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but it would totally change the publics perception of them if results came out (falsely) inconclusive or guilty, a worth not risk taking for an innocent person, a person not charged with any wrong doing.

I understand why the argument is used by the internet prosecutors, but you simply have to take into account how fallible these tests are. In certain cases, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

Always thought cia n fbi used them for new members,the special forces in india,china also use.Theres articles online, fbi polygraph.I dont think usa is good example.The justice system in america is still at 3rd world country level,you think the great usa are going to let thousands of innocent blacks,hispanics free.The system there is run by private companies who earn millions by taking advantage of the lower classes.

 

What happnd to kay kay17 posts n a ban.

 

just came in and was wondering same thing..

 

hopefully for spouting absolute nonsense about the McCanns

 

There will be forever an air of mystery about him/her.....lived their short TC life to the full.......by the by, 'Banned!' under that green silhouette looks kinda cool!!!

 

Says the gullible * that thinks they had * all to do with her 'dissappearance'

 

Twisty, If you are talking about the book written by Goncalo Amaral, ? his claims dont stand up and even the Portuguese prosecutors couldnt use it as evidence (because it wasnt "evidence" ) He is now trying to claim that Gordon Brown subsequently covered up his so called evidence ?? (which is why I termed it a half baked conspiracy theory) and of course, he is now writing another book to make even more money from this tragic case

 

Really ? Im gullible ? read your own posts back to yourself

 

I get what u mean,they do have there faults,although theres a lot of science in support of them.Think its way society is headin tbf,computers n machines are taking over from a lot of things,even in medicines computer wil be more acurate than humans and will map our dna and predict our ilnesses,its wil eventaully go to law as well,computers wil become more accurate than the human brain.But right now were stil a bit way.

 

It's not really great evidence though, like I could say...


1) The "Cadaver dog", how long does is actually take for that smell to appear? given she was known to be alive and then known to be missing within like 4 hours would a body really give off smells that quick especially if rumoured she died of an overdose so not like the body was bleeding everywhere. Also that the body was likely took away and hidden really quickly so it wouldnt even have been in the apartment for 4 hours, probably wasnt even there for over 1 hour.

2) The guy could came in the window and walked out the front door?

3) I don't know if they usually do that when kids go missing abroad.

4) Nobody should really ever answer any police questions about anything other than telling them what you know like. "We last seen her at 9pm she was there now shes not, nobody else we know has seen her" etc answering obscure questions means you are just giving evidence against yourself even if you never done anything. All lawyers would tell people especially considering they had good money to answer nothing especially since we all know they left the kids there alone that would make people think badly of them right away and then deeply look into all their answers to pick further holes in them.

5) How long had they been in Portugal up till then though, i'd say even after a week you'd be deluding yourself to think she's going to re-appear and easy to think why more publicity about it would be good.

6) Witnesses are always inconsistant about everything. You could film a crime happening in front of 10 people, then ask all the witnesses what happened and who done it and where they ran to after it and probably get 10 different when you watch the video and compare what they said likely none of them would get it right.

7) Thats not really out of the ordinary

8) How many private investigators have good records of finding missing children anyway? I bet not many, if any especially once the children have already been missing for even a couple of days. How many kids aged under 8 go missing for a week and are ever found?

9) If you were innocent you wouldn't want people writing books saying you did it either.

10) Witnesses always say different stuff or things that sound weird.

Not that I believe they never done it but it's not exactly evidence of them doing it.

If you look at it from the opposite point of view it's probably just as easy to give a list of how they never done it. Like why did nobody see one of them leaving with her body to take it away. Did nobody spot their car leaving and re-appearing, how far could they have really gone in the small window of time they had from her death to going out for drinks that night it was probably less than 3 hours meaning the body is probably within 1 hours driving distance of the hotel, how come nobody saw the car driving anywhere or stopped anywhere, how did no-one notice them acting really weird considering their child must have died within 3 hours of them out drinking with friends, they must be absolute psychopaths not to have shown any signs of distress especially since one of them probably had to leave with the body right away so they'd both have been alone dealing with how one of their kids just died.

It would be more believable if Madeleine died the night before and they were never seen at all that day so had hours to plan, hours to hide the body and hours to prepare themselves. But given she went from alive to missing in under 4 hours its barely any time to plan anything unless they planned to kill her and do it in advance.

I think what goes against them is Kate McCann is an ugly *, her skinny bony face and tiny wee nose are ugly as * and she has a cold look about her but she always looked like that. It's just an off putting face.