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

bobbin wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:It's a 'blink and you miss it' segment added for no apparent reason  

Link requires post code to open, not worth submitting for something worthless.

Any expert worth her salt would not quantify degree of innocence considering subject-under-study was featured only for milliseconds.
It suggests lack of objectivity.  Someone objective is likely to afford it just general comment.
In a Court of Law her professionalism would become open book - her full qualification, experience, and her analysis would be under scrutiny either questioned or challenged.

Remember Alan Pike ?  
He counseled or evaluated (subjective)  the Mccanns for a good few years,and just ONE question from the Judge and his analysis proves waste of time.

Just another ? Coincidence ? Pike was at Manchester Metropolitan University, the same place as where the 'lying' technology is being developed ?
A playful little thought....Did he attend the McCs to guide them on how to 'evade' the developing technology, or was he sent as a 'spook' to gather info to catch them out ?
He certainly hasn't helped them to get successful mileage out of the libel case (presuming it goes to a just and legal plan and is not 'politically' sideswiped at last minute).   

PeterMac wrote:I have just sent a copy to Dr Leal, for her information.

Dee Coy wrote:
I think you may have hit the nail on the head, here. On the tiny clip shown, where Gerry reads to describe their anguish and loss, they aren't lying. For those 30 seconds or so, they are 100% innocent of lying. They have just lost their firstborn, and are no doubt genuinely anguished and sad, regardless of anything else that happened.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I didn't recognise all the people mentioned in the programme as being definitely innocent.

I was watching the mighty Sunderland in action so missed the programme..... but did Sion Jenkins get a mention at all?

Doug D wrote:I believe it was only ITV early morning news that 'broke ranks' and reported that 'today (7th) was the last day of the trial', even when everyone else knew that it had been postponed many hours before, maybe building up to their sensational 'exclusive' that evening. 
But if there were two versions, surely the back-up would have made no mention at all and also as it was unlikely that any verdict was going to be given out yesterday if it had gone ahead, it probably doesn't make much sense, but then what does?

Doug D wrote:Maybe all that was on the script was 'Don't forget to put your arm round her', because to me that looked completely unnatural, but I'm probably wrong not having studied at Portsmouth.

russiandoll wrote:This segment was about those people wrongly considered guilty in the court of public opinion. Guilty of a crime. There was no crime specified for the Mcs. Dr Leal could have mentioned why people were wrongly suspicious and disagreed , instead she highlighted a statement of fact which could not be argued with

  " the anguish we feel as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine"

 No mention of why anguished..." this is how I would expect the parents of an abducted child would behave "

 No expert contrasted this clip to any previously shown of Matthews

 the segment was introduced by a voiceover from the narrator saying that people can be wrongly perceived as guilty if you don't know what signs [ of innocence presumably] to look for. There was no follow-up to this in any of the cases quoted, including the Mcs.
 There was no focus on facial expression, body movements, just a remark about the innocence shown by not being concerned about what others might think of you, if you read from a prepared script in a highly charged and stressful situation.


 Compared to what came before and after it, this segment had the look of something put together and inserted at short notice. It was poor stuff and not just with regard to the McCanns.

 We saw a distressed Lindy Chamberlain  repeating what she had said about the dingo taking the baby.
 We saw a young woman expressing her displeasure with the media who clearly had angered her by whipping up the public not to believe her story.
At no time was there any evidence of the signs we should look for which show that these seemingly guilty, dishonest people are in fact being truthful

admin wrote:Whilst I'm honoured that Blacksmith reckons this is one of the best forums, and I have to agree with him, I think we should boycott his blog and not give it any more database space.

No more links to his cesspit please.

dantezebu wrote:I haven't had the chance to watch the full program yet, just really the clip with the MCs. It seems that it is Dr Leals opinion that the MCs are 100% innocent because GM read from a script. That he had an important list of things to remember and that having a list was not a sign of guilt.
Did she mean not a sign of guilt in this case. Or not a sign of guilt, ever.
She gave no other evidence for her opinion. Did not use any of her wonderful techiques to identify liars. Just pulled her opinion out of the sky. Where is her evidence? What research has she done on the couple?
How can a scientist make a statement of 100% certainty about anything, even less so with no evidence to back it up.
All of the techniques that are used to retrospectivly identify liars and non liars are bypassed in this one case.
He raid from a script therefore he is 100% innocent!
What absolute b*******.
She has just undermined her credibility completely.
And the question is why?

candyfloss wrote:
By Dr Martin Roberts

08 January 2014


ABOUT INNOCENCE

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html



Transcript of Dr Sharon Leal comments about McCanns also just below Dr Martin article.