Monday, 19 November 2007

Kate and Gerry refuse lie detector test

Don Cargill, chairman of the British and European Polygraph Association, said the McCanns told him they would only take the test if it was 100 per cent accurate and admissible in a Portuguese court. He told the Sunday Express: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing.

"I don't think it was the McCanns' fault. I was left with the impression the whole thing was a PR exercise to get sympathy at a time when Kate was under increasing scrutiny."

2 comments:

guerra said...

After watching all these recent programs staring the McCann, a few questions come to mind. We know they want to prove they are innocent, but to whom? These programs are directed at the public and not the police. Would they not want to prove their innocence to the police and wouldn’t the best way of doing this be just to meet with them and answer their questions? The question now has to be asked, so why is it more important for them to convince the public rather than the police? Is it to elicit a public outcry for the police to drop the case against them or is it a psychological flaw of people that cannot bear that some have a negative opinion of them? I don’t think any of these shows would be presented in court, so why not take a lie detector test, even though its not admissible in Portuguese tribunals, it would convince the public and isn’t that their primary goal?

Another thing I find unusual is that not knowing the whereabouts of their daughter they still had the composure to allow a family friend to film their daily activities in Portugal, for what purpose? Well I guess we already know the purpose, to create a program to sell to several broadcasting corporations. When I hear journalists say that this story is gold, and I step back and look at this whole affair, I get the feeling that this is a well contrived money making venture.

Other things I wonder about, is the involvement of the British government. Now the British Government either believes 100% in this couple’s innocence, has some doubt, or knows that something criminal took place. Wouldn’t the British government have some doubt, after all this couple evaded the questions posed to them by the police and the declarations that they and their friends have made are contradictory and some have been proven to be false. So if the government has some doubt, why get involved in the defence of this couple to this extent, isn’t this interfering with justice? If the government knows that something sinister took place, then is not their protection of this couple also a criminal offence?

Sometimes I don’t know what to make of all this, very strange indeed.

Anonymous said...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xy2xp0rtdQI