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

by J4MM 07.01.14 21:41

You're on my wavelength! friends

by Guest 07.01.14 21:45

100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

by marconi 07.01.14 21:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

30 April 2010

[size=24]Kate and Gerry McCann promise they'll never give up searching for Madeleine [/siz

Neither will we, the PJ and the Met police.

by Guest 07.01.14 21:51

Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Maybe we should send her some info from the PJ files, and the video of the dogs, and Dr Amaral's book, and see what percentage of innocence she reckons the McCann's are then.

In fact, pity she didn't do some research before committing her assessment to a documentary which will go down in history. Obviously she doesn't care too much about her professional reputation.

whacky

by J4MM 07.01.14 21:52

Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.

by ultimaThule 07.01.14 21:55

Cheers, candyfloss.

Here she is: http://www.port.ac.uk/department-of-psychology/staff/dr-sharon-leal.html

As far as I'm aware, Portsmouth isn't exactly cutting edge in the field of forensic psychology and I note that Dr Leal has yet to publish her own work.

I'm still inclining to the view that the 2 minutes or so devoted to the Macs is part of the bigger picture; at this stage of the game they can hardly be featured in a programme of this type and be denounced as out and out liars.

When viewing again it will be interesting to observe Shazza's body language when she made her pronouncement... first sight having rendered me frozen in time as I wondered whether my ears deceived me.

In the meantime, I would advise the residents of Rothley Towers to keep the bunting under wraps and put the champers back in the wine cellar.

by Liz Eagles 07.01.14 21:56

All the people analysed so far by these 'experts' are analysed in retrospect - well apart from the McCanns that is.

It was the police who captured the criminals. The 'experts' are now commenting in hindsight and Leal says the McCanns are 100% innocent. I don't think that statement has done much for Leal's credibility. The McCanns may turn out to be 100% innocent in the future but then again they may not. Would a serious expert state categorically that they know? How strange. Does Leal consider her opinion only part of an investigation? or does she consider her opinion absolute?

Good innit!

The timing....

by cockerspaniel 07.01.14 21:58

J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.

exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE! lol!

by Rasputin 07.01.14 21:58

Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Eddie & Keela would argue with that !

by sallypelt 07.01.14 21:59

What a lot of tosh!!!

by Guest 07.01.14 22:00

cockerspaniel wrote:
J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.
exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE!

Why include them in this programme?

by Guest 07.01.14 22:01

cockerspaniel wrote:
J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.
exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE!

They should have left them out of the programme altogether.

by sallypelt 07.01.14 22:06

admin wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:
J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.
exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE!
They should have left them out of the programme altogether.

I totally agree. Disgusting, and they never caught one on body language or facial expression. They only observed them AFTER they had been found guilty. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

This country has become a laughing stock. And as for the McCann's, you've heard it yourself............they are INNOCENT.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

by sallypelt 07.01.14 22:06

admin wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:
J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.
exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE!
They should have left them out of the programme altogether.

I totally agree. Disgusting, and they never caught one on body language or facial expression. They only observed them AFTER they had been found guilty. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

This country has become a laughing stock. And as for the McCann's, you've heard it yourself............they are INNOCENT.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

by Liz Eagles 07.01.14 22:06

Have any of these 'experts' been involved in any of the cases they are commenting on?

by ultimaThule 07.01.14 22:09

I intend to reserve judgement until I've watched it again and recorded it so that I can slow it down to see if there is any sign of duper's delight on Shazza's frozen features when she makes her pronouncement.

by bobbin 07.01.14 22:10

admin wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:
J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.
exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE!
They should have left them out of the programme altogether.

Pike was at Manchester Metropolitan University, is this the same place as where the 'lying' technology is being developed ? It was on the last bit of the programme, and I thought I heard it.

ETA.
I'm watching the repeat now. In UK, Innocent until proven guilty. The interviewer/reporter cannot possibly say anything else that 100% innocent if the McCs are included in the programme. Odd that they were included, but the programme is not a court of law, nor the police, nor has a trial happened YET.

by Mirage 07.01.14 22:11

bobbin wrote:
admin wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:
J4MM wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:100% innocent after observing them for 90 seconds?

Precisely. Why weren't the McC's videos slowed down and scrutinized in the same way as those who have already been found guilty? Presumably the 'experts' gave their 'expert' opinions after conviction.
exactly, I doubt very much that itv are going to call the mccanns guilty..... I mean could you imagine the libel trial for THAT ONE!
They should have left them out of the programme altogether.

Pike was at Manchester Metropolitan University, is this the same place as where the 'lying' technology is being developed ? It was on the last bit of the programme, and I thought I heard it.

Hi Bobbin. Yes it was.

by roy rovers 07.01.14 22:12

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

by Guest 07.01.14 22:13

ALL cases in that programme were analysed retrospectively. ALL cases investigated convicted criminals (apart from that poor cjap who they used to illustrate a truth-speaker). Except the McCanns.

Why include them? Why broadcast today on what was supposed to be the last day of the trial? Why spend only 60 seconds or so on footage of them? My conspiracy-seeking mind wonders if they were sending them a subliminal message of reassurance. It's exactly the sort of programme they'd be compelled to watch.

Why would that message be needed right now?

by ultimaThule 07.01.14 22:14

admin wrote:< snip >
They should have left them out of the programme altogether.

This was my immediate thought too but the fact they were featured begs the question of why and, to my mind, it can only be because there is a hidden agenda and that agenda has nothing to do with establishing their innocence.

by J4MM 07.01.14 22:16

ultimaThule wrote:I intend to reserve judgement until I've watched it again and recorded it so that I can slow it down to see if there is any sign of duper's delight on Shazza's frozen features when she makes her pronouncement.

You may conclude that Shazza's brain, as well as her features, is frozen.

by Guest 07.01.14 22:16

Apart from everything else that's not right about this TV programme, I think it's extremely unprofessional of the psychologist to assert their 100% innocence.

by ultimaThule 07.01.14 22:18

Dee Coy wrote:ALL cases in that programme were analysed retrospectively. ALL cases showed convicted criminals. Except the McCanns.

Why include them? Why broadcast today on what was supposed to be the last day of the trial? Why spend only 60 seconds or so on footage of them? My conspiracy-seeking mind wonders if they were sending them a subliminal message of reassurance. It's exactly the sort of programme they'd be compelled to watch.

Why would that message be needed right now?

Not so much a subliminal message but one that was intended to reassure them while raising public awareness.

One thing it will have done is got the pros crowing - I hardly dare look to see what trulysenile and her socks are ~~ranting~~ twittering big grin

by The Rooster 07.01.14 22:19

Call me old fashion call me boring but I think the woman with the catfish lips was lying I think I saw a micro fulfillment suppression pupil constriction da da de da da thing going on. Twit!

Log in for more topics