The Lie Lab , Channel 4, UK TV

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script ) - 17 Jun 2007 18:46 GMT

What are other people's thoughts.?
With its obvious possibility of use in the legal process.
More mumbo-jumbo or something with more
credibility than "polygraphs".
MRI scanning of the brain of someone giving
in their own view both true and false responses ,
being interpreted by a professor viewing
the response times and summation of inferred
brain activity in a specific area of their brain
in the 2 situations.
Compared to polygraph inferred responses,
more removed from any brain activity, that may or
may not be associated with lying.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/mediacentre/2007/817.html

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_headline=lie-test-proves-i-didn-t-poison
-wee-girl--&method=full&objectid=19272894&siteid=64736-name_page.html

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/L/lie_lab/detection_1.html

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Reply to this Message

Joe Lee - 18 Jun 2007 02:38 GMT

> What are other people's thoughts.?
> With its obvious possibility of use in the legal process.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> more removed from any brain activity, that may or
> may not be associated with lying.

I saw the whole of the (was it the first) episode, where one of the
ex-guantanamo Bay 'detainees' submitted himself to the MRI scan, & the
results were inconclusive - to say the least.

And I saw about the last half of last Saturday's programme where the central
subject failed, at the eleventh hour, to submit herself to the scan.

My conclusion, based on what I've seen so far, is that this series should be
pulled from the schedule & binned. Not because it's unentertaining (although
ultimately it is), but because rhere has been no demonstration to show that
this particular technique, or perhaps more accurately - those who are
interpreting the sesults - are doing so in in an objective or scientific
manner.

Signature

Joe Lee

Reply to this Message

Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script ) - 18 Jun 2007 07:59 GMT

> > What are other people's thoughts.?
> > With its obvious possibility of use in the legal process.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> --
> Joe Lee

The reaction time bit is no different
to polygraph testing.

The first "terrorist" one threw up the necessity
of clear-cut questions. To the one being examined,
going to an Afganistan al Quaida training camp
and asking to hold an AK47 was just youthfull
curiosity but to an another viewpoint was
evidence of terrorist training.

Perhaps the "salt poisoner" second case was more clear-cut.

I would like to see what sort of controls they used
in preliminary studies. Schizophrenics and dissociative
people would have proved interesting as would
plain old pathological liars.

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Reply to this Message