Mat said
Whether is is reliable or not isn't the question. The question is how do you expect a lie detector to help your case? Luke was convicted on evidence in court - it's that evidence you need to attack and until you do that in an open and honest way you can have a million lie detectors posted on the internet and nothing will happen.
I agree with most of what you say here, Mat - the lie detector test/result changes nothing in legal terms. But it doesn't mean nothing will happen - there are a number of factors involved in fighting wrongful convictions - just take a look at how many high profile Miscarriages of Justice took literally years to get the convictions overturned, often because the courts simply refused to allow the information, which would attack the prosecution evidence, to be heard. Maintaining a high public profile for cases claiming wrongful conviction, putting as much information as possible into the public domain, trying to build public support, etc, are all factors in the process.
I've had people contact me as a result of articles/forum discussions/documentaries, etc who have said, themselves, that had it not been for the fact of those public discussions, they would probably not have tried to do anything with the information they had. I've also had messages from fence-sitters (their own description), and even from those who have changed their opinion from guilt to innocence as a result of having had access to more information. So it's not entirely accurate to say "nothing" will happen.
Attacking the evidence in an open and honest way is what I have been trying to do, against some particularly difficult obstacles, for almost 10 years. In Scotland, it is an offence to post many of the documents I have had access to - the most I can do is quote from them (and even that can be risky). It does, of course, leave me open to accusations that people are just having to "take my word for it" - there's not a great deal I can do about that. But I have called the SIO a liar, publicly, several times, and demonstrated from his own statements exactly how and why he is a liar. I have quoted directly from statements, pointing out many, many anomalies in accounts - none of those whose statements I have quoted have ever stated that what I have quoted is untrue, etc, etc.
Luke, and others like him, are where they are because other people were dishonest. It would serve no-one if people like me tried to fight that dishonesty with further dishonesty - it would be stupid and pointless. Although some people might find it hard to believe, I do, actually, have a real life, and I wouldn't waste a minute of it (a) fighting for someone I thought might be guilty, or (b) undermining my own hard work by making public information I knew to be untrue.
Is there any evidence you believe I have not attacked in an open and honest way? I'll do my best, within the restrictions I face, to address this, if you can give me concrete examples.
