DR. MARTIN ROBERTS : 9.JAN 2014.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

EXCLUSIVE to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

By Dr Martin Roberts
09 January 2014


THE LIE DETECTOR

Congratulations to Dr Sharon Leal, for having caused more controversy with one sentence than many accomplish with a book. Her future as a media source of expert opinion is guaranteed (the likelihood of any court appearances in said capacity remote in the extreme).

During my own student days many years ago, I was once counselled: ‘Believe your data’, the message being not to attempt an explanation of experimental outcomes that was not reflected in the concomitant results of statistical analysis. In other words, do not engage in unfounded speculation as to causes or outcomes. Dr Leal, in contrast, holder of goodness knows what research grants, appears to believe in some other sort of scientific method, where ‘opinion’ alone can carry the weight of evidence.

The statement, 'the McCanns are 100% innocent (from my point of view)' would be perfectly acceptable in conclusion of a thorough-going appraisal of the McCanns' behaviour over time, i.e., one which addressed all of the variables acknowledged by those engaged in such a study to be worthy of consideration in any overall assessment. Otherwise it is fine as an after-dinner observation, or made over cocktails at the hotel bar even, but offered up without the support of evidential data and a rigorous argument as to the implication(s) thereof, itself based upon a significant statistical outcome, it is inappropriate, indeed unjustifiable as a representation of any professional determination. In other words it is not worth the breath that bore it.

However.

If the expertise of Dr Leal is such as to be influential at even a cursory level of assessment by herself, then, in the context of a television programme dealing explicitly with the topic of criminals lying about their actions, and in the complete absence of any qualifying accusation, whether valid or otherwise, 'the McCanns are 100% innocent' must be read as 'the McCanns have not lied'.

Immediately one can see the fallacy in this argument, as there exists incontestable proof that they have lied. Various of their false statements have long been a matter of spoken (and written) record.

But more illuminating yet than a catalogue of behaviours, which even the untrained examiner might take to contradict the supposedly more informed approach of Dr Leal, is the outcome of subscribing unreservedly to her very position; a position which, ipso facto, confers the status of truth upon the McCanns' own actions and utterances.

Hence Kate McCann's most magnificent Freudian slip tells us, in no uncertain terms, that Madeleine McCann is dead, and has been so since before Kate McCann declared publicly (to Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010):

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

And no, that is not over-interpretation. Kate McCann did not say:

"We're not going to sit here and lie OR be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

Lying and naivety are conjoined. And since lies are spoken for the most part (we're not concerned here with the written word), saying Madeleine is one hundred per cent alive is, in this instance, to be equated with lying.

Which makes the fundraising, both before and since, the biggest lie of all (Dr Leal)."

True to form, Dr Roberts once more hits the nail right on the head! I love that man!

Never mind expert opinion. I don't think she would qualify for jury service.

Dr Roberts is good,must admit I look forward to his writings

Leal is a disgrace to scientific methodology. Her career in forensic psychology is mercifully over.

 Even we non-scientists can spot a bigoted non-scientific response when we hear one. I think that footage should be shown as an object lesson at Portsmouth for years to come.

It is obviously rude to comment on someone`s personal appearance if they cannot help what they look like ..... but, in the case of when it can be helped, which this lady`s is ........  (deleted)

P.S.  And ......  if she`d been serious about her research into the McCanns (and Goncalo Amaral) she would have used the Silent Talker from Manchester University to monitor interviews with all 3 people - she`d soon see who is really lying.

tiny wrote:Dr Roberts is good,must admit I look forward to his writings

***
I do too. And have you noticed, that he never descends to rudeness and under-the-belt "humorous" attacks ... ?

Woofer wrote:It is obviously rude to comment on someone`s personal appearance if they cannot help what they look like ..... but, in the case of when it can be helped, which this lady`s is ........  can a person that is botoxed up to the eyeballs honestly be taken seriously?

P.S.  And ......  if she`d been serious about her research into the McCanns (and Goncalo Amaral) she would have used the Silent Talker from Manchester University to monitor interviews with all 3 people - she`d soon see who is really lying.

I reckon she's had it done so that her techie friends can't use their 'detectors' on her to see her facial 'micro expressions' if she lies!

Châtelaine wrote:

tiny wrote:Dr Roberts is good,must admit I look forward to his writings

***
I do too. And have you noticed, that he never descends to rudeness and under-the-belt "humorous" attacks ... ?

Oh yes,and thats the way I like it.

Châtelaine wrote:

tiny wrote:Dr Roberts is good,must admit I look forward to his writings

***
I do too. And have you noticed, that he never descends to rudeness and under-the-belt "humorous" attacks ... ?

Dr. Roberts has no agenda, (unlike BS imo) he analyses and questions - so obviously his alma mater isn't Portsmouth University.

I still want to buy the collected works on the McCanns - how about an e-book?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Woofer wrote:It is obviously rude to comment on someone`s personal appearance if they cannot help what they look like ..... but, in the case of when it can be helped, which this lady`s is ........  (deleted)

P.S.  And ......  if she`d been serious about her research into the McCanns (and Goncalo Amaral) she would have used the Silent Talker from Manchester University to monitor interviews with all 3 people - she`d soon see who is really lying.

I reckon she's had it done so that her techie friends can't use their 'detectors' on her to see her facial 'micro expressions' if she lies!

I wondered about that when they were speaking, that in the future intelligent criminals will have various procedures done so that these things would be less likely to give away whether are lying or not. There would be little or no change of expression, (rest deleted)

I have already posted there is no need for such personal remarks.

Way too late for the McCanns and their 'friends' every micro expression, shrug, sigh, gulp,touching, etc already recorded for posterity since May 2007!