Re: The Lying Game: Crimes That Fooled Britain .... Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 - ITV at 9:00pm,

by Daisy 07.01.14 23:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
fpizza34 wrote:Someone on Facebook says the programme was made by Shine TV - part of Shine Group - Co-founder and Chairman none other than Elisabeth Murdoch. Married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell works or worked!! all becomes clear now.

http://www.shinegroup.tv/people/elisabeth-murdoch

Hugely significant IMO (if true) - very well spotted.

May explain both the timing and the content of this broadcast.

Definitely made by Shine http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week2/lying-game-crimes-fooled-britain

by Halfwit 07.01.14 23:31

worriedmum wrote:Is she really trying to say that she is 100% sure the McCanns are innocent?

Because I'm trying to get my head round the concept of numbers in relation to innocence, say, 75% innocent...or 32% innocent... or 6% guilty.. strange isn't it?

Hello worriedmum.

If you think about the implications... of course they are 100% innocent in the eyes of the law.

The real question is why they were included in a programme about liars.

I have hope that the worm is turning.

by tasprin 07.01.14 23:34

The McCanns should never have been included in this programme. What else could the experts say but 'innocent,' it's an on-going case, and Sharon Leal wasn't particularly convincing herself. If the experts in any way hinted at guilt they'd be interfering in a criminal investigation (plus sued). They were never going to say anything else and It just looked like the programme was broadcast for PR purposes, so they could dig up someone to say the McCanns were innocent knowing the libel trial was to resume today.

by maebee 07.01.14 23:35

worriedmum wrote:Is she really trying to say that she is 100% sure the McCanns are innocent?

Because I'm trying to get my head round the concept of numbers in relation to innocence, say, 75% innocent...or 32% innocent... or 6% guilty.. strange isn't it?

The "100%" was a definite, dismissive. The McCanns are 100% innocent. Nothing more to say here. Let's move on to the guilty ones. She obviously hasn't read the files and doesn't know that the case of Missing Madeleine is unresolved and ongoing. Idiot.

by Newintown 07.01.14 23:38

worriedmum wrote:Is she really trying to say that she is 100% sure the McCanns are innocent?

Because I'm trying to get my head round the concept of numbers in relation to innocence, say, 75% innocent...or 32% innocent... or 6% guilty.. strange isn't it?

She said in her view she believed the McCanns were 100% innocent because:

a) the McCanns didn't care how they looked to the public (i.e. they were both wearing casual clothes, track suits - but she didn't explain how Kate McCann suddenly turned to always looking pristine in future interviews and announcements to the press days later) and

b) Gerry McCann had to write down points on a piece of paper so he wouldn't leave anything out when he was addressing his audience i.e. the press. It didn't seem to occur to her why a distressed father of a missing child would need to read anything off a crib sheet to the press. As a forum member mentioned a long time ago, it looked and sounded more like Gerry was reading out an advert for a car he was selling.

So there you have it, the McCanns are innocent in her eyes because they wore tracksuits and Gerry was reading off a piece of paper.

Silly c*w ! smilie

by jeanmonroe 07.01.14 23:45

maebee wrote:
J4MM wrote:... according to Dr Sharon Leal, Forensic Psychologist.

Who obviously hasn't read the Official Police Files

Have you learnt nothing maebee?

Dr Sharon Leal dosen't have to read the files.

The McCanns TOLD her they were totally innocent!

As they also TOLD their (rather embarrassed now) expensive lawyer IM of CR and all the 'witnesses' they had testify for them in Portugal.

Makes a mockery of one of her statements that out of 100%, '50% of people can't spot a liar' though dosen't it?

Which means that she is saying that 50% of people CAN spot a liar!

Not quite sure how Dr Leal is going to explain why KM phoned Jon Corner at 3am, 4th May 2007 and told him 'the shutters were smashed, and window jemmied' and when that 'lie' was instantly proven to be false, by the police and resort manager, the McCanns 'changed' their story to 'oh they must have entered through the unlocked patio door'

Perhaps Dr Leal thought that nobody would ever spot that 'lie' not being as 'expert', at spotting lies, as she herself is.

So, as Dr Leal points out, when the McCanns constantly change versions of events, they are still 100% 'innocent'!

Will 'analyse' more tomorrow.

by aiyoyo 07.01.14 23:46

admin wrote:
Daisy wrote:This should make for interesting viewing. Tonight (7th Jan) - 9pm ITV

"It’s a scene that’s played out time and time again over the last 20 years. In an attempt to throw the police off the scent, the cold-eyed killer stares into the camera and begs the public for help to solve the crime they know they have committed. But how can we tell a genuine appeal from cynical manipulation? A growing body of experts now believe they can expose a liar through scientific methods.

In the Lying Game: The Crimes That Fooled Britain, three of the nation’s top forensic and behavioural psychologists and experts reveal the developments in the science of lying. Using their expertise they will provide fresh insight into some of the most notorious criminal cases"

Read more: http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week2/lying-game-crimes-fooled-britain
Just think...Kate and Gerry will feature in a programme like this one day

eta: Oh, they have just featured in this programme and the expert says they are 100% innocent.

Time to switch the lights off and go home then.

Lying on National TV is not exclusive to criminals, expert can do it too.

Note the title of the programme - "In the Lying Game: The Crimes That Fooled Britain" - how apt they featured the Mccanns!

Interesting that ITV included Mccanns under the category of "most notorious criminal cases" showing people (later proven as perps) on National TV acting out their sham of grief.

Perhaps the point is overlooked here in that the significance lies not in what the expert says (or rather can or cannot say) pertaining to the mccanns. Rather the significance lies in the fact that the Mccanns were featured in a programme as such titled.

One surmises that only cases which contents correspond to the title fit for purpose of the programme were selected. Else, the essence of the message would have been lost on the audience.

ETA: The Newspapers know; The Police know, The Whole World knows.....

by tasprin 07.01.14 23:50

maebee wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Is she really trying to say that she is 100% sure the McCanns are innocent?

Because I'm trying to get my head round the concept of numbers in relation to innocence, say, 75% innocent...or 32% innocent... or 6% guilty.. strange isn't it?

The "100%" was a definite, dismissive. The McCanns are 100% innocent. Nothing more to say here. Let's move on to the guilty ones. She obviously hasn't read the files and doesn't know that the case of Missing Madeleine is unresolved and ongoing. Idiot.

As Kate McCann would say "it's not an exact science".

by **PeterMac** 07.01.14 23:51

Brilliant.
Make a programme about people who have LIED and LIED and LIED again on camera and have been proved to have done so . .
And are in prison for the rest of their natural lives.
And so you have a good programme.
Signed, sealed, and delivered.
And then. . .

You include the McCanns,
even for a few seconds, even saying C-R have told us we have to say the following . . .
just "en passant", as you do on TV programmes - include totally extraneous and irrelevant detail, when your programme is controlled down to the last millisecond- - -
Why would you do that ?
Why did they do that?
Did the reference to them ADD to the programme ? Clearly NOT.
So why did they do it ?

They are "stuffed".

by aiyoyo 07.01.14 23:57

The Media knows......

Two can play at the game .....Mccanns can, so can the Media.

C-R can stuff !

by roy rovers 07.01.14 23:59

roy rovers wrote:100% innocent! - Hugh Trevor Roper (he of Hitler's Diaries fame) eat your heart out.

Just to expand for young or foreign readers - The Sunday Times serialised the Hitler Diaries on the basis that they were authenticated as 100% genuine by the eminent historian Hugh Trevor Roper - the only problem being that they were 100% fake. HTR's reputation never recovered, I fear that of Dr Sharon Leal's reputation will follow a similar trajectory.

by Newintown 08.01.14 0:03

bobbin wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
maebee wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
maebee wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Nobody in their right mind would claim that somebody is 100% innocent of a crime after thirty seconds analysis. I think she stumbled slightly when she said it but I'll re-watch to check.

I reckon this new technology they're using will have been tested out on the McCann's on Crimewatch for sure! KM's face striaght in the camera talking about whooshing curtains!! There was no reason for them to be on the programme so I think it's tactical.

They hand-picked the clip TW. There are a hundred other clips of the Mcs which would show exactly what they were looking for in "Liars on TV"

Cheer up Maebee, the McCann's have just been featured on a programme called 'The Lying Game: Crimes That Fooled Britain' - we have to ask ourselves WHY???????
I see what you're saying TW. The Mcs were only given a minute or so in this programme but the "expert" declared them "100% innocent, in her opinion. It should be noted that this programme was produced by Shine TV.

Shine's Chair and CEO is Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert, wife of Matthew Freud (of Freud Communications and erstwhile employer of one C E Mitchell)

At this moment in time, the McCann's are innocent in the eyes of the law. So that is the truth. See?
I wonder if Gerry's little smirks when questioned about reports of sightings of Maddie will be noticed when the technology is applied ...

Or even the shrug of shoulders in interviews as done by Ian Huntley observed by the criminologist or whoever he was watching Huntley's every move in interviews.

Oh, and I nearly forgot, the "talking too much about irrelevant details" - Stuart Hazell, Maxine Carr were shown waffling away about nothing (the Rog interviews sprang to mind at that point when it was mentioned)

by Guest 08.01.14 0:05

I am now sold,thanks petermac!

by Halfwit 08.01.14 0:29

PeterMac wrote:Brilliant.
Make a programme about people who have LIED and LIED and LIED again on camera and have been proved to have done so . .
And are in prison for the rest of their natural lives.
And so you have a good programme.
Signed, sealed, and delivered.
And then. . .

You include the McCanns,
even for a few seconds, even saying C-R have told us we have to say the following . . .
just "en passant", as you do on TV programmes - include totally extraneous and irrelevant detail, when your programme is controlled down to the last millisecond- - -
Why would you do that ?
Why did they do that?
Did the reference to them ADD to the programme ? Clearly NOT.
So why did they do it ?

They are "stuffed".

I hope with all of my heart that they are Peter.

My misgivings are of a corrupt cover-up.

by jeanmonroe 08.01.14 0:30

Newintown wrote:
Or even the shrug of shoulders in interviews as done by Ian Huntley observed by the criminologist or whoever he was watching Huntley's every move in interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wanna see shoulder 'shrugs'???

Just have a look at KM in her 'interview' with Kirsty Wark, on the CW programme!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFCdbMc0qZc

1:14, 1:18 (warm up shrugs)

I nearly had to call out the tv repairman because i thought Kate had dented the top of my telly!

When she did the 'big' one!

(2:46 mins)

I did highlight this at the time. Perhaps Dr Leal 'missed' it!

Would love to be a fly on the wall when Dr Leal and expert 'shoulder shrug' man meet!

100% they are 'lying' says 'shoulder shrug' expert

100% 'innocent' says 'i can spot a liar at 50 paces' expert.

by jeanmonroe 08.01.14 0:35

"talking too much about irrelevant details"
-------------------------------------------

Sea bass, Harry Potter, why didn't you come when we were crying,(duping delight moment) iconic tennis ball girl photo that Kate says she took (but she didn't), Gerry crossed the street to chat with Jez, etc

Damn, damn, damn, and blast, more 'lies' 100% 'innocent' Kate didn't say!

by Halfwit 08.01.14 0:38

PeterMac wrote:Brilliant.
Make a programme about people who have LIED and LIED and LIED again on camera and have been proved to have done so . .
And are in prison for the rest of their natural lives.
And so you have a good programme.
Signed, sealed, and delivered.
And then. . .

You include the McCanns,
even for a few seconds, even saying C-R have told us we have to say the following . . .
just "en passant", as you do on TV programmes - include totally extraneous and irrelevant detail, when your programme is controlled down to the last millisecond- - -
Why would you do that ?
Why did they do that?
Did the reference to them ADD to the programme ? Clearly NOT.
So why did they do it ?

They are "stuffed".

I hope with all of my heart that they are Peter.

My misgivings are of a corrupt cover-up.

by Newintown 08.01.14 0:47

jeanmonroe wrote:Newintown wrote:
Or even the shrug of shoulders in interviews as done by Ian Huntley observed by the criminologist or whoever he was watching Huntley's every move in interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wanna see shoulder 'shrugs'???

Just have a look at KM in her 'interview' with Kirsty Wark, on the CW programme!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFCdbMc0qZc

I nearly had to call out the tv repairman because i thought Kate had dented the top of my telly!

(2:46 mins)

I did highlight this at the time. Perhaps Dr Leal 'missed' it!

Would love to be a fly on the wall when Dr Leal and expert 'shoulder shrug' man meet!

100% they are 'lying' says 'shoulder shrug' expert

100% 'innocent' says 'i can spot a liar at 50 paces' expert.

by Halfwit 08.01.14 0:47

jeanmonroe wrote:Newintown wrote:
Or even the shrug of shoulders in interviews as done by Ian Huntley observed by the criminologist or whoever he was watching Huntley's every move in interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

jcloth's youtube video was much more informative. Quite early on I spotted the upper curl of the left lip in one of their liars and they made no comment on it.

by MRNOODLES 08.01.14 1:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
fpizza34 wrote:Someone on Facebook says the programme was made by Shine TV - part of Shine Group - Co-founder and Chairman none other than Elisabeth Murdoch. Married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell works or worked!! all becomes clear now.

http://www.shinegroup.tv/people/elisabeth-murdoch

Hugely significant IMO (if true) - very well spotted.

May explain both the timing and the content of this broadcast.

Yep, imo it's been dropped in, in anticipation of the trial result.

No such thing as a coincidence.

by MRNOODLES 08.01.14 1:18

Anyway isn't it easy to make a programme about lying with hindsight concerning convicted killers and a whole host of video clips?

by jeanmonroe 08.01.14 1:18

Dr Sharon Leal is a fellow at the University of Portsmouth.

The Centre for the Study of Missing Persons is based at the University of Portsmouth. Jo Youle, CEO of Missing People, is Chair of the Advisory Board.

Jo Youle, CEO Missing People:

Of whom the 100% innocent Kate McCann is an 'ambassador' for.

"The charity Missing People is delighted to be working in partnership with the CSMP.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/

SMALL WORLD, INNIT?

by **Hobs** 08.01.14 1:36

Remember folks, everyone is 100% innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

Claims of i'm innocent are frequently said by criminals, and technically they are until pronounced guilty.

They will often also claim they cannot say anything in public on the advice of their attornies, if they didn't do the crime what is to stop them shouting it from the rooftops? There is nothing to stop them saying they didn't do it, attornies though will always advise their clients to say nothing until the trial.

How many times have we heard the i'm innocent claims only to have the culprit admit their guilt just before the trial in order to get a plea deal or have them on the first day of trial plead guilty.
Stuart hall is a prime example.

her claim means bugger all.

by void 08.01.14 1:44

Hobs wrote:Remember folks, everyone is 100% innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

Claims of i'm innocent are frequently said by criminals, and technically they are until pronounced guilty.

They will often also claim they cannot say anything in public on the advice of their attornies, if they didn't do the crime what is to stop them shouting it from the rooftops? There is nothing to stop them saying they didn't do it, attornies though will always advise their clients to say nothing until the trial.

How many times have we heard the i'm innocent claims only to have the culprit admit their guilt just before the trial in order to get a plea deal or have them on the first day of trial plead guilty.
Stuart hall is a prime example.

her claim means bugger all.

Agreed, BUT the main problem here is that the McCanns have refused to prove their innocence by behaving like shady, odd people ever since this sham started. We wouldnt be here discussing this on a forum regarding our theories that the McCanns are hiding something if they weren't exhibiting behaviour which would indicate such.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless you are in fact guilty

by jeanmonroe 08.01.14 2:12

Hobs wrote:Remember folks, everyone is 100% innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

Claims of i'm innocent are frequently said by criminals, and technically they are until pronounced guilty.

They will often also claim they cannot say anything in public on the advice of their attornies, if they didn't do the crime what is to stop them shouting it from the rooftops? There is nothing to stop them saying they didn't do it, attornies though will always advise their clients to say nothing until the trial.

How many times have we heard the i'm innocent claims only to have the culprit admit their guilt just before the trial in order to get a plea deal or have them on the first day of trial plead guilty.
Stuart hall is a prime example.

her claim means bugger all.

So, is Dr Leal saying that the McS 100% innocence includes the provable lies the McS have told?

Just ONE 'lie' would, by definition, make them LESS than 100% innocent wouldn't it?

Say just 99.9% 'innocent'.

With subsequent 'deductions' in % terms of 'innocence' for any other 'lies' that may have been told, by them.

Log in for more topics