UK paedophile probed over Madeleine

[loopylou6]

here
thoughts?

'A lot of people' ie newspaper readers and armchair commentators thinking that they should take a lie detector test is totally irrelevant.

It's up to the police to say who is a supect, not a baying crowd who base their suspicions on what clothing the parents wear and if they cry enough in public.

They aren't suspects, of anything. Therefore, they will not be subject to lie detector tests to satisfy the public.

I'm sorry but I always have to smile at the word 'probed'...but that's just me I suppose.

Morris I think the police did say that they were suspects.

As far as I know Polygraphs arent 100% reliable.

No no Morris but I do think it would help their cause iyswim...which would be a really good reason for them to ask to take them, IMO - I know I'd really want to rule myself out.

I think parents are always suspects in an investigation such as this...perhaps not officially but certainly have to be ruled out as a matter of course.

But given that they are so unhappy at people suspecting their involvment , a simple lie detector test would convince many people of their innocence.
It would convince me.
Why are they fighting a legal battle to prevent the wider publicationof Amaral's book , they say it will stop the hunt for Madeleine.But only if people believe Amaral. So basically what they are saying is that we don't you to hear what he has to say because it will discredit their abduction theory.

There are significant problems with the reliability and validity of lie detector tests. That is why they are not permiited to be used as evidence in courts in this country.

But the people searching for Madeleine are the people employed by the Mccanns. So if they are swayed by what is written by the book and decide to part company with the Mccanns as a result then perhaps one might question why?

The general public however, are not searching for Madeleine. So the publication of the book will not make any difference to them, surely?

I did not know that eskimum - thankyou.

I read somewhere that they are 90-something % reliable. Perhaps it would be pointless then.

Exactly, Wannabe - I don't know anyone who is actively looking for her...though I keep an eye out whenever I see small blonde girls in the street. And I'm not someone who even necessarily thinks she is still 'out there'

But why on earth do they have to pander to people on internet forums and take a lie detector test, which as said already, are unreliable?

katiestar, the McCanns owe you nothing. No explanation. No test. No apology.

If they have done anything criminal then it is a criminal matter, and the police will question/ charge them as they deem fit.

The opinion of the public is neither here nor there. There are no end of people willing to concoct conspiracy theories on the internet, on everything from space exploration to 9/11.

This is just amateur speculation, and carries no legal weight whatsoever.

Anyway, given how far the conspiracy theorists are willing to take their arguments, if any lie detector test was to 'clear' the McCanns of whatever is is that 'lots of people' think they have done, they'd just say it was a whitwash, cover up, another McCann PR coup etc etc.

Madeleines mum actually said in one of teh interviews that she would take a lie detector as soon as they weren't arguidos any more but changed her mind.I don't think it is pandering to websites but the closest people to victims of crime and usually the last people to see them are normally questioned to eliminate them.it is just in this case that didn't happen so there are doubts I suppose.The 2 men looking are a bit to say the least they have an agency that deals with affairs etc and aren't still police men they are self appointed private investigators(this was all in the docu the other night on ch4 before you all flame me).They never give a straight answer ever which has worked against them.

Tinker they don't have to pander to anyone - of course they don't. But if they want to try and convince people, it might be worth considering, that's all.

See it could come up as 99.99% certain they were innocent of any involvement, and yes there would be people in the 'well there's still that 0.01% possibility' camp, but most of us might feel more inclined to believe them iygwim.

As I said though I didn't realise they weren't reliable.

Noddy, how do you know that the McCanns were never questioned as being suspects in their child's disappearance?

I would have thought that after the child disappeared, they spent hours and hours with the police doing nothing but answering questions.

What would satisfy you on this - do you want to see film footage of them in an interview room or something?

very sad about little maddie. im assuming that the investigators are looking to the brit man , with the possibility of finding out about other child molesters that the man may know of?, child trafficking or peodophile rings?....if he was himself a proven suspect he wouldnt have been named, would he?. another reason for naming and shaming imho, we parents just dont know who/what is near us.... i once had a police officer say to me if the public knew how many sex offenders were out there, we'd never leave our homes.

I agree with MZ on this that nothing would satisfy the conspiracy theorists.

Well the files are avaialble to read and although gerry answered all the questions he was asked kate didn't.She hasn't denied this and her statement with all the no comments is freely available to see.As I have said before I was very much of the sympathetic view until a friend journalist who was out there corrected me on a few things.I admit I have been suspicious since then.

I disagree Tinker - I'd be satisfied by certain events or behaviours having taken place, but as things stand, my opinion is undecided...not that it is relevant to the case, what I might think. I don't know what happened and likely never will. Plus it's none of my business.

Here's a really cynical perspective. The private investigators run a business, businesses need PR and good results to survive. They also need to be paid. And to make a profit. The McCann fund is running out and they have already admitted they can probably only afford to run until the end of the year or a bit longer. Surely as a business, the private investigation company will be under pressure to create positive publicity and produce a result. They could be grasping at straws, they could be correct in their deductions, who knows.

they are not obliged to take a lie detecter to satisfy the public.

However, given they are relying heavily on public sympathy, and have irepeatedly said how innocent they are, one might wonder why they would turn down the chance to show that.

Their decision of course. But refusing to take a lie detecter makes them look suspicious.

If they're happy with that then that's their decision.

I think the Oprah thing was a bit of that tbh.gerry mentiuoned the fund at any opportunity which seemed a bit tasteless really.

I can understand why he would do that Noddy, they obviously want to keep the funds coming in and the search going to get closure, wouldn't we all. But I'm coming from the point of view of rats deserting a sinking ship. The investigators as a client of the McCanns trying to get out paid and with a result if possible.

It could be connected, but I highly doubt that even I am cynical enough to believe that the McCann PR team would invent or announce a potential suspect just to keep the profile of the campaign up. That really would be riding roughshod over the public.