I begged my lawyers to let me take one when the false allegations were first made but they said courts NEVER accept them as evidence as they are totally unreliable.

I had assumed they were done in due course and ignored anyway.

I hink in Jonathan's case they'd have thrown out anything that might have exposed the truth. I seem to remember reading how one of his 'victim's' tripped themselves up by getting the colour of his front door at the time wrong! Perhaps over time the memory of details fade, but then why say the door was 'bright blue'? Then it emerges the front door was painted 'bright blue' in recent years. It's those little significant facts which though may not prove someone's innocence, certainly should have everyone doubting seriously JK's convictions.

Quite simply they don't work.

Although because some believe they work when confronted with one they confess. That's about the limit of their usefulness.

I see the police have now realised what I have been saying all along - that there is no evidence that Maddie was in the flat at the time of the "disappearance".

She could have been killed earlier in the day and when the parents went out to dinner they simply pretended that she was in the flat - and hey presto - when they return, she has "disappeared".

No one had seen Maddie (or her mother from early afternoon until the fateful "dinner").

This threw the police completely off the scent and focussed all searches etc in the WRONG area.

Sky currently reporting that Robert Murat is to be cleared on any involvement and his "arguido" status lifted.