I'm sorry I was gone for a few days, personal life, Christmas and all that but I want to reply to this
I didn't say that I "hate cops". I said I don't trust cops. They feed cases to the prosecutor whom gets paid to put you in a cage. It makes a prosecutor look bad if he cannot accomplish this.
So you like them to save your life if you need them to but other then that, they are scum right?
Cops are people, just like you, they make mistakes, some have attitudes, some are great and have only the best intentions. Your blanket disreguard and insult for all cops is not right, but I don't expect you to admit that.
Oh, there is one other thing, all cops do a job that is dangerious and could cause their death at any moment, all to protect their communities, maybe they deserve better than your giving.
My point being, the police shouldn't allow a magic machine to determine the direction of the investigation. It is not admissible in most courts, unlike "evidence" and "facts".
It is a tool, like any other tool in life, it helps us.
You cannot get to court until you do the investigation, and the investigation can get some assistance with it's direction with tools like this.
I have never heard you say this before. This is the interenet. I'm sure you are aware of the "know it all" syndrome that some people suffer from.
You could have just asked, as some have to me in pm's here, but I guess this was easier for you.
I believe you. About being an ex-cop, that is. I had to question you in order to gauge your reaction. You seem genuine.
Should I feel honored by your acceptance?
What I am saying is the same reguardless of my past jobs, the lie detedtor is a very useful tool that can assist this investigation to go the right direction, but the parents refuse to take the test so that is a kind of admission to me.
Looking up is indicative that one is searching their brain for an answer or excuse. Looking down? I believe that is indicative of guilt. Not 100% sure, but this is why I always made a point of looking a cop in his eyes when I lied to them.
That is why an experienced investigator will get you off guard first, get you talking about other things and pop the telling question on you when your not waiting for it.
That is the BEST case offered by the institution that is in the business of selling polygraph examiners on the open market. Logic tells us this is an inflated, best case figure. I posted several sources that hotly dispute this number as actually being much much lower. 80-95% depending on the operator.
Again with your logic claims.
You don't like what reality tells us so you make leaps of "logic" to make assumptions you cannot support, I'm sorry but my real life experience of trying to beat these machines tells me that if you have a good operator, these things are as close to 100% as you can ever ask for.
Even if we said the number was lower for arguement, what parent would not give their child an 80% chance? As you said, the results are not admissable in court so if their innocent and get found to be telling lies by the machine, nothing changes, these parents are still the focus of the investigation as they have been all along.
But, if their innocent and they pass the test, now the investigation can take most of their resources off of that direction and instead spend those resources on looking elsewhere.
Any innocent parent who had a missing child and was not involved would give their child the greatest chance of finding them, or their killers. What is the greater chance? What gives the highest percentage?
The way I see it, the cops should be investigating upon evidence, not magic. Even in the best case, you would have a 2% chance of sending the cops after yourself, the innocent person. Better hope you aren't that 2 in a hundred.
As I already covered, nothing really changes, the parents are considered the killers now, if their not the killers, what gives them the best chance of letting the cops know this?
How can they help the investigators feel okay about turning their attention away from the most likely killers in cases like this?
Real evidence has a 100% chance of being accurate. DNA, the murder weapon with your prints etc. Real evidence.
Now your just being silly.
Nothing is 100%, even DNA evidence has it's limits such as the 80 to 90 percent match on the blood recovered.
By your standard, nobody gets investigated for anything in this world because nothing can meet your 100% requirement for accuracy.
Sometimes we must use the element of elimination to know what has happened, the parents can mostly eliminate themselves as suspects if they pass a lie detector test but for some reason, they refuse to take one. So, they will remain the prime suspects until a reason comes along to give them cause to look elsewhere.
When people start wandering into the realm of unreliable mechanical mind reading devices, we are being dishonest to the investigation. It is a proverbial "desperate move" by the police in the absence of real evidence.
If 98% or even 90% is not reliable to you, what is? Everything is subject to failure, even if it is small so all we can do is gather what information we can and move forward from there.
The reason we use tools like this is because sometimes there is no picture of the crime to go on. Sometimes the killer did not bleed all over the place so we can use DNA evidence to place him at the scene. Sometimes we must use things like lied detectors and even gut instinct to take us into directions we cannot go based on the hard evidence.
Most crimes are solved by investigators using their skills than are solved by open and shut available evidence from the scene.
