In fact you cannot, legally, refer to it as a lie detector because it doesn't detect lies. In the US, when stating whether or not a defendant took the test, then term polygraph must be used.

They're not as easy to fool as people think, it takes a bit of practice. But the problem here really is how do you establish a reasonable emotional baseline, when your going to ask questions about a recently 'abducted' child.

Polygraphs generally work best, when testing things like alibi's and incidental facts of the case.

Plus its often not considered sensible, when you are in a 'prime suspect' in a serious crime to actually answer the police's questions, even if you are innocent. The police aren't looking at you to rule you out, but to confirm their expectations.

Its different than being a witness or a bystander. In most cases where a kid is harmed or killed, its about establishing which of the parents inflicted the harm, and how much the other parent knew about it.

In the McCanns case, they'd already put themselves into a position of suspicion, because they'd left their kids alone, to go to dinner and have some fun.

Any decent legal advice would be 'do not answer the questions' that I tell you to not answer.

Its very important, when your innocent, to not accidentally incriminate yourself. Actually, it probably more important if your guilty, thinking about it.

They went for dinner 50m away. You make it sound like they went out, getting pished, a few miles away.

It's not a decision I would have made but it would not constitute neglect. And they are paying for it now in a way most parents fortunately won't even have to imagine.

The attention given to their case did seem disproportionate compared to other missing children, but other than not being particularly likeable, I haven't seen anything to justify the suspicion and scrutiny they have come under.

Probably looks like her mum a bit then?

Its a tricky situation. Typically you leave a child with a babysitter, because of the risk of accidents, generally outweighs the risk of strangers.

Problem is, that we believe that leaving our kids with other people protects them from abuse, but the truth is a bit more distant, as the people we trust our kids with invariably will be the ones who abuse them. The risk from strangers is staggeringly low (compared to relatives and friends of the family).

Plenty of people leave their kids with high risk abusers groups on a regular basis, despite it being well documented, and no one gives a s**t. Uncles and granddads are massively disproportional in abuse stats.

In truth, their real mistake was leaving a window open it seems.

I don't think there's any 'tricky situation' at all.

If you've got a toddler then you don't let them leave your side.

I don't think there's any 'tricky situation' at all.

If you've got a toddler then you don't let them leave your side.