Jhony5
New member
I don't believe in this method. TJ does, he brought it up. I was explaining that I realize that police use these tactics to draw conclusions. So in my shady past and even the present with my marijuana travelings, when I am being interrogated, hiding something from the cops or otherwise just trying to prevent the officer from drudging up more reasons to f ck with me, I'll look 'em in the eye, answer him with short stubby answers and let him do the work.My question to jhony5 is, why do you believe in this looking up/looking down, thing as being a credible way of telling deceit, but not a polygraph, that monitors involuntary biological response? You, yourself, said that you make an attempt to fool this method, by staring a cop in the eyes. To my knowledge, a cop can't really testify in court that someone lied to them because they looked up before answering the question.
Thats just it. A polygraph is not a reliable tool and can cause far more damage than good. It can ruin lives of the innocent. It can lead police away from, or toward, the wrong persons.Does this mean that all investigatory tools currently used by cops should be abandoned, unless it can be backed by science and testified in court? Should cops stop using their gut instinct to lead them to a suspect, since he can't say that he checked into a certain person because he had a "feeling", which then led him to the evidence to convict the person?
A shovel is a tool. A very handy one that many of us use all the time. But how many people would use a shovel if 2 in 100 exploded when you used it? Because thats what your esteemed "tool" does, by admission of the very institution that supports the polygraph, at least 2 in 100 times it is used, it blows up.It is a tool, like any other tool in life, it helps us.
I know. Logic is a motherf cker, ain't it?
I learned long ago that nonchalance and indifference will knock a cop off his toes and onto his heels really really fast. What this does is it creates a void in his training. He learned that guilty people respond with X, and innocent people respond with Y.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.
You also just supported what I meant when I stated "never trust a cop". They may seem to be conversating with you, but really they are playing a game. Understanding this from the get-go will relieve one of the potentially relentless mind games played by cops.
There are rules when dealing with a cop that is asking questions.
#1 Only answer a specific question once, no matter how it is rephrased. If he rephrases a question and you realize this, explain to him that you already answered that.
#2 Don't care. DO NOT CARE about the consequences. Tune it out and proceed as if you have a get out of jail free card. Nonchalance is your friend.
#3 Do not trust the cop. Do not believe him.
#4 This one is very important; When you answer the questions such as "Where are you going, where are you coming from, why are you here, why were you there", answer them directly without a long supporting story being attached to it. This doesn't allow the cop to have anything to work with. If he/she wants it, they will press you.
Example; COP: "Where are you coming from"?
ME : "My house".
COP : "Where is your house"?
ME : "Indianapolis".
COP : "Where in Indianapolis"?
ME : "Southwest side".
Ya see? Answer them directly without a story. Make 'em work for it. Don't start in with details as this just creates problems and will arouse his contempt. As much as it angers a type-A when you are matching wits with him/her, they will at least respect you for not being weak and making them do the work. As in my story above when I was questioned and searched for driving a nice truck in a poor neighborhood, allow this circle of questions to go around twice. On the third go-round, stop playing his game and cease to cooperate.
20 years of marijuana use and a litany of petty crimes in my past and not one arrest. There is a reason for this. Smooth criminal.
This discussion is becoming circular in its resolve.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 argument, what parent would not give their child an 80% chance? As you said, the results are not admissible 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?
You keep talking about the parents helping by subjecting themselves to a phony test that may backfire. How does that help when the test fails? Which it does fail often enough to garner disdain for the practice itself.
Answer me, TJ. How does it help if the test fails? Upon the answer of this you get your reason why a parent should never subject themselves to such erroneous machinery.
This follows my method of operation when dealing with cops. Answer their questions twice, after that, when the tone turns accusatory, demand that all further questions be posed to your lawyer. And by all means, do not ever, never, under any circumstances allow them to hook you up to a polygraph thinking that this will help them find your child. It will not!
There are many examples available of police giving a polygraph, the suspect passes it, and they continue to investigate them. Ironically, citing the inaccuracy of the polygraph as reason for further investigation. Begging the question "Why f ckin use it in the first place"?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.
Because, you cannot tell when a lie detector fails. There are no indications, no signs pop-up, no red flags or bells nor whistles sound. When your car fails, you know. When your airplane fails, you know. When your spinal cord fails, you know. When your f cking toaster fails, you know.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.
When your lie detector fails, you have not a clue.
Understands .........?