Maddy McCann

[Jhony5]

First of all I am very dissapointed in you reducing the life of a child to mean nothing more than a bike sitting on a sidewalk unattended, very dissapointed.

Respectfully TJ, you are not getting the point of what I said. You insinuated that the lack of evidence toward an intruder signifies that there was no intruder. My analogy provides you a stunning example of why you are incorrect. I am not likening a child to a bicycle. Please do not dumb it down to that level.
You did not address the inherent proposition I laid out;

No witnesses. No evidence. You were irresponsible and stupid to leave your bike out there like that without a lock. But even under all these circumstances' date=' [u']it is pretty obvious that someone stole you bike[/u"].

This equates well to the McCann case and the issue you are tauting. That the lack of evidence to indicate an intruder has taken the child somehow means an intruder could not have taken the child. There is evidence; 1) A missing child.

2) Open windows and two unlocked doors.

Your statements are in a like context as the old clich?; "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound"? The answer is yes.

FALSE, TRY REMOVING YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ***. LAWYERS TEST THEIR OWN CLIENTS ALL THE TIME. THE ACT OF LYING PRODUCES PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS. In fact, testers are usually asked to lie deliberately on certain questions in order to establish a baseline.

Jeez Hugo, calm it down a notch, aye?
NPR : Foolproof Test for Catching Liars Still Elusive

The problem with the polygraph — in essence, it is more of an anxiety detector than an instrument that measures lying.

Herein lies the rub. While the polygraph can show when someone gets anxious, it can't say definitively what is triggering their anxiety. Critics of the machine say it is as much about intimidation as it is about not telling the truth.

In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences decided to put the machine to the test. Its conclusion: When the polygraph was used to investigate a specific incident, it performed "well above chance though well below perfection." It was hardly a ringing endorsement. The problem, the NAS report said, was that while the physical manifestations often associated with lying could be measured by the polygraph, the very same problems — increased heart rate, skyrocketing blood pressure and sweaty palms — could happen in the absence of a lie as well.
"Many other psychological and physiological factors (such as anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses," the report said. "Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results."

Lots to extrapolate from this, and this is not my "mouth" running TJ. It is well known that lie detectors are faulty. It is also well known that you cannot rehearse for a lie detector session.
A lie detector measures anxiety. If the circumstances are disingenuous and there is no fear of reprisal for being caught, the anxiety will not be as high, or even present at all. Thusly, the results from a mock run will be inconsequential.

Again, you know nothing about how these machines work, reactions to telling a lie are involuntary. Yes, more pressure will add a greater reaction, but the reaction is there anywhere.

I know exactly how they work. It is basic stuff. And your above post is a backhanded way of agreeing with me. If the circumstance of the test is not genuine, then the responses will not be genuine. If you do not fear being caught, then your involuntary reactions will be stifled.
I would be far more relaxed if my lawyer was, in essence, administering the test, as opposed to an official and documented test being administered under police supervision.

I did not insult you, don't insult me please.

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize if you took it that way. I only meant to convey that I find your appraisal of the authentication of mock tests to be biased and in full disregard of logic.

A lie detector test could allow the investigators to feel safe dropping their attention away from the parents

.....or it could backfire and provide a faulty response. Thusly stabbing to death any chance of the investigation leaning away from the innocent parties.

No "innocent" parent would refuse to put more attention on other directions if they had it in their power.

I would never take one. Ever. Even if my daughter was missing and I knew she had been taken. I would not take one. I do not believe that they are accurate enough to risk my *** and my daughters life that the test will be accurate. I am not the only one. I posted quotes from a non-bias group that scientifically measured their accuracy, and the appraisal was less than flattering.
Lets keep this debate civil guys. There are few debates ongoing on this board that are civil. No more cracks about statements being "retarded" and people having their "heads up thier ***".

Agreed?

 

[snafu]

I've taken a lie detector test before. They don't just rush into the test. They have you relax and settle down a bit. Then they have you lie and tell the truth like what your birthday is on purpose to calibrate the system (I know hugo mentioned this already). They only ask pertinent questions to the case. You are only to answer yes or no. Most times they let you see the questions in advance. They can also check your system for drugs. They're pretty **** infallible.

Oh yes, I passed my test.

 

[snafu]

Oh and they will ask you the same question in different ways. Like did you do it? Do you know who did it? Do you know who might have done part of it? Stuff like that.

 

[Jhony5]

I've taken a lie detector test before.........


........They're pretty **** infallible.

The best case scenario, as sited in a biased format by the institution that oversees polygraph examiners, is 98%. A figure that is hotly disputed as overly generous. But even if 98% is the case, this means if 100 people take the test, 2 will be incorrectly accessed. A proverbial roll of the dice.

I would not bet my freedom, my life or my reputation on a roll of the dice.

You guys keep ignoring the 500 pound (2%) gorilla tearing *** through your living room.

Keep on telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. It makes you guys seem quite biased as you fellas are disputing cold hard facts with poorly arranged anecdotal fallacies.

 

[sheik-yerbouti]

In fact, testers are usually asked to lie deliberately on certain questions in order to establish a baseline..

Correct. I have read somewhere that the testee is required to lie three times. A white American middle aged man for example would be asked if he was a European then wether he was a black man, then wether he was a teenager, or some other such questions. He would answer yes o all three. The exercise shows that the subjects obvious lies are detectable by the aparatus, and that the aparaus clearly works.

However the aparatus can be fooled. Yu could for example cause yourself stress as you answer a question, hence giving the impression that you have jus lied. Bite your tongue hard, or squash a toe with your other foot under he table.

You would not do this when they ask- did you kill the kid ? You would already have given a stress positive to tha question, you would do it to other questions where you have no reason to lie, hence giving stress positives to most if not al questions. This points the finger at the equipment not working, rather than you being guilty .

Any innocent parent would take the lie detector test. QUOTE]
I agree. In addition to doing anything they could to help apprehend the killer, they should also be doing anything they could to clear themselves. This is what they must do if their intentions really are to assist the police. Instead, they are actively not helping the police. A damning thing to do if they really wished to bring this matter to a succesful conclusion.

 

[timesjoke]

Respectfully TJ, you are not getting the point of what I said. You insinuated that the lack of evidence toward an intruder signifies that there was no intruder. My analogy provides you a stunning example of why you are incorrect. I am not likening a child to a bicycle. Please do not dumb it down to that level.

No, it is you who is not getting the point, you are trying to make leaving your tiny children alone in a room where everyone is scared less of spontanious fire erupting without warning sound the same as leaving your nike unatended.

They are not the same and the level of responsibility cannot be matched, so your example cannot be considered to anyone with a brain.

You did not address the inherent proposition I laid out;

This equates well to the McCann case and the issue you are tauting. That the lack of evidence to indicate an intruder has taken the child somehow means an intruder could not have taken the child. There is evidence;

1) A missing child.

2) Open windows and two unlocked doors.

No, this is nothing like the mccain case, there is a monumental diffefence between the care and responsibility a parent should show for protecting their children from harm compared to caring for a bike.

You do not leave children in harms way if your a good parent.

Your statements are in a like context as the old clich?; "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound"? The answer is yes.

No, it is about responsibility. At the very least these parents had a responsibility to keep their defensiveless children safe. You said yourself everyone in that place thought it would explode into flame without notice, why would any parent leave children unattended in a situation liek that?

Lots to extrapolate from this, and this is not my "mouth" running TJ. It is well known that lie detectors are faulty. It is also well known that you cannot rehearse for a lie detector session.

Nope, there is plenty of evidence to show they are very accurate, as you said in another post, they are proven to be 98% accurate, the 2% you speak of are chalked up to things like tampering.

Bullets are not 100%. They are less then 75% effective to stop someone with one shot but they are still the best way to defend yourself.

The point I am making is would a geed parent take a 98% chance to help find their missing child?

Your **** right they would, my children are worth a 2% risk.

A lie detector measures anxiety. If the circumstances are disingenuous and there is no fear of reprisal for being caught, the anxiety will not be as high, or even present at all. Thusly, the results from a mock run will be inconsequential.

Wrong, the only thing that can make a test ineffective is certain mental conditions and drugs.

A trial run would be very effective for a guilty person because if they fail with the slightly lesser stress of a controled test, they are guranteed to fail during the real thing, and that has been my point from the start, your just pretending not to understand the concept.

I know exactly how they work. It is basic stuff. And your above post is a backhanded way of agreeing with me. If the circumstance of the test is not genuine, then the responses will not be genuine. If you do not fear being caught, then your involuntary reactions will be stifled.

Again, you are wrong time and again, a person "always" reacts in an involuntary way to telling a lie, even in a social setting, relaxed and secure. I see people do it almost every day, that is what helps me be so successful at selling stuff, I always know when people are bluffing, so I call their bluff and win every time.

I would be far more relaxed if my lawyer was, in essence, administering the test, as opposed to an official and documented test being administered under police supervision.

Again, that is one of the factors for doing a "safe" test. I agree there may be a reduction to the "level" of involuntary reaction to telling a lie in a controlled test, but if you cannot pass that, you are guranteed to fail the test that is for the record.

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize if you took it that way. I only meant to convey that I find your appraisal of the authentication of mock tests to be biased and in full disregard of logic.

But your wrong, a person cannot just turn off their involuntary responses to telling lies. A lie is a lie and when you are strapped with all the sensors and asked questions, it does not matter if it is the police or someone your paying, it is still going to test if your telling lies or not and everyone is scared of being discovered telling lies.

Think of it another way, if she is guilty of killing her child, and she is taking a "safe" test, she would still be concerned aboyt those people knowing she lied and concerned that information may get leaked to the press.

So there is still significant stress for the guilty.

.....or it could backfire and provide a faulty response. Thusly stabbing to death any chance of the investigation leaning away from the innocent parties.

It is not going anywhere now, so a failed test could change nothing. The investigators already see them as the prime suspects and a failed test cannot be used in court against them, and as you already admitted, there is only a 2% chance of a false positive, no, any true caring parent would take the test to help their child, if not to clear themselves of suspician.

I would never take one. Ever. Even if my daughter was missing and I knew she had been taken. I would not take one. I do not believe that they are accurate enough to risk my *** and my daughters life that the test will be accurate. I am not the only one. I posted quotes from a non-bias group that scientifically measured their accuracy, and the appraisal was less than flattering.

But that is because your a criminal, you think like a criminal and you believe they may ask you questions that would incriminate you in other thengs. Your a drug user, you have cause to be scared of answering questions honestly to investigators.

It is easy for you to say now that you would turn your back on doing everything to help find your daughter because your not in that situation, but if you were in this situation and you knew more police strength could be directed tword looking for a stranger if you just took this 98% chance, I believe you would give your daughter that 98% chance.

I know I would give my children that 98% chance.

Lets keep this debate civil guys. There are few debates ongoing on this board that are civil. No more cracks about statements being "retarded" and people having their "heads up thier ***".

Agreed?

It was you being that way tword me, not the other way around, maybe you need to learn to be civil, point fingers at yourself before you try pointing them at anyone else.

 

[Jhony5]

#1 Taking a polygraph won't solve this crime

#2 You need to start backing your statements up with facts. I have. You got nothing but mouth buddy. Back your sh t up. Specifically statements like this;

Nope, there is plenty of evidence to show they are very accurate, as you said in another post, they are proven to be 98% accurate, the 2% you speak of are chalked up to things like tampering.

Back it up or shut it up. I'm done hearing your bullsh t. Back it up.

It was you being that way tword me, not the other way around, maybe you need to learn to be civil, point fingers at yourself before you try pointing them at anyone else.

I was addressing Hugo. Not you. Your cynicism needs quite a bit of work, however.

 

[timesjoke]

#1 Taking a polygraph won't solve this crime

Nobody ever said it would, I and others are just saying that if the parents are truly innocent as they "claim" they are, taking the test would allow more energy and resources to be directed in other areas if they take the test and give the investigators a good reason to no longer consider them feasable suspects.

#2 You need to start backing your statements up with facts. I have. You got nothing but mouth buddy. Back your sh t up. Specifically statements like this;

Back it up or shut it up. I'm done hearing your bullsh t. Back it up.

I got experience and first hand knowledge, but I will use your own statement against you in this case:

The best case scenario, as sited in a biased format by the institution that oversees polygraph examiners, is 98%. A figure that is hotly disputed as overly generous. But even if 98% is the case, this means if 100 people take the test, 2 will be incorrectly accessed.

Again, why would any caring parent not give their child the 98% chance?

I understand your fear of these machines, your a drug user, a criminal, your supposed to be scared of these things, but those of us who have nothing to hide don't share your concern.

Obviously these parents have something to hide.

I was addressing Hugo. Not you. Your cynicism needs quite a bit of work, however.

But you did make negative comments tword me, you cannot bash him for doing what you do.

 

[snafu]

I think where they become unreliable (the 2%) is how the test was preformed. That?s were you get inconstancies. I would find it hard pressed to believe someone could fool it on multiple tests.

 

[hugo]

They are guilty, case closed. Sadly, not enough to convince the average dolt to convict. Most people are unable to use statistical analysis to come to the obvious conclusion: the McCanns killed their daughter.

Looks like the rich tourists are getting preferential treatment again: Kate and Gerry McCann are spared police questioning 'until after Christmas' | the Daily Mail

Yep, give em a couple more weeks to get their story straight.

The phuckin' nerve of the child killers: Madeleine McCann's family cancel Christmas - Telegraph

Tell 'em I'm celebrating Christmas whether they like it or not.

 

[timesjoke]

I think where they become unreliable (the 2%) is how the test was preformed. That?s were you get inconstancies. I would find it hard pressed to believe someone could fool it on multiple tests.

I completely agree, as with most equipment, it is the operator, not the item itself that has a problem.

How many mechanics have messed up a repair on a car? Does that mean all vehicle reparis have problems or just that certain people did not do the repair correctly?

I have seen these things in action and been involved in a "myth busters" kind of test on them. Several of us took a week and attempted to "fool" the lie detector. We had no expectation of iminent prison time to worry about but still we could not fool the **** thing as Jhony is trying to say.

I even tried the needle in the shoe method where you place a tack under your tow and press down on it to cause yourself pain at irregular times during the test and the guy running the test knew what I was doing after about 10 minutes and searched me to find the tack.

Like anything else in this world, a highly trained professional operator makes all the difference in accurately running tests like this.

The guy that we were trying to stump was good, he knew all the tricks and accurately determined truth from lie no matter what we tried to do to trip him up. As was already said, they ask you the same questions in different ways and even when you are just playing a part, it is impossible to have yourself under complete control to fool the machine consistantly.

I was involved in testing a lie detector test that just used cameras and remote sensors. They focused on general things like posture and specific things like your eyes and pupils. I was very impressed at how accurate this thing was as well. It was based on old school methods of human reactions and also new technology like knowing the person's temperature changes without touching him.

 

[atlantic]

So what happens if the test gives a false positive? How much does that help find her daughter?
Yep, that's what I thought. If this happens than everything is screwed up.

Also, lie detectors do not work if there is no fear of reprisal. You are wrong about that Hugo. In order to garner an authentic reaction (Sweat, tremors etc) there MUST BE an authentic fear of reprisal for lying.

Do you understand? Or does this logic escape you? If it does, then I will bother proving it too you. But you are an intelligent man so I will assume you understand.

This is true. There have been cases where guilty parties have passed lie detector tests and later found guilty because of dna testing, and cases where innocent people have failed the polygraph only to find the real killer later, it can happen.

 

[Jhony5]

I understand your fear of these machines, your a drug user, a criminal, your supposed to be scared of these things, but those of us who have nothing to hide don't share your concern.

It's called street smarts brother. You think I care if the cops know about my marijuana if my daughter went missing? Honestly. I am not scared of them. I don't trust cops. I don't trust voodoo machines that use magic. I don't play that sh t. "Find my f cking daughter you dumbass pig and stick that machine up your *******".

I was involved in testing a lie detector test that just used cameras and remote sensors. They focused on general things like posture and specific things like your eyes and pupils. I was very impressed at how accurate this thing was as well. It was based on old school methods of human reactions and also new technology like knowing the person's temperature changes without touching him.

You are one of these guys that always turns out to be an experienced expert at every subject being debated. Strangely absent is your proof of such or any accompanying documentation to back up your assertions and theories.
I know lie detectors can work. Don't act as if I don't know this. I also, however, know that they can produce erroneous results and the reasons are far broader than mental illness and/or drug use. The reasons can be anything from a poorly trained examiner to a nervous subject. Setting a "control" doesn't always rectify this.

I posted a non bias article sighting the fallibility of the polygraph. You ignored it and attempted to dismiss me as a "scared criminal drug addict". Pathetic!

Start backing up your assertions in this debate or I will have to dismiss you as mentally unstable. Your anecdotal "expertise" will no longer be accepted as suffice.

This is true. There have been cases where guilty parties have passed lie detector tests and later found guilty because of dna testing, and cases where innocent people have failed the polygraph only to find the real killer later, it can happen.

It has happened many many times. Despite TJ's flailing assertions, for inexplicable reasons.
A good book about the lie that is the lie detector;

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

Facts supporting my opinion of this fraudulent science;

Learn How to Pass (or Beat) a Polygraph Test | AntiPolygraph.org

.

Make-believe science yields make-believe security.

 

[timesjoke]

It's called street smarts brother. You think I care if the cops know about my marijuana if my daughter went missing? Honestly. I am not scared of them. I don't trust cops. I don't trust voodoo machines that use magic. I don't play that sh t. "Find my f cking daughter you dumbass pig and stick that machine up your *******".

Actually if you take the time to truly read everything I said, I clearly gave my opinion that your assertions of never taking the test are based on not truly being in that situation and I believe that if you truly were in this situation and had the 98% chance to put more strength into looking for your child's abductors, you would give your daughter that 98% chance of more attention in the right direction.

If you were innocent that is.

People always say how much they hate cops but when their behind in on the line, all of a sudden they are who they turn to for help, all of a sudden they like cops, interesting isn't it?

You are one of these guys that always turns out to be an experienced expert at every subject being debated. Strangely absent is your proof of such or any accompanying documentation to back up your assertions and theories.

What do you want me to do man, you want me to post my old paycheck stubs for while I was a cop or do you want me to post a copy of my training certificats that I have to update every 4 years to stay certified in case I want to return?

I was a cop and still do private training and go to the law enforcement shooting competitions every year, I stay involved, so what, being a cop and being in training gives me a lot of exposures on things like this, your just upset because I won't let you get away with your bull concerning things I know more about than you do.

I know lie detectors can work. Don't act as if I don't know this. I also, however, know that they can produce erroneous results and the reasons are far broader than mental illness and/or drug use. The reasons can be anything from a poorly trained examiner to a nervous subject. Setting a "control" doesn't always rectify this.

I already said the person doing the test is more important than the machine, machines do what they do, this one measures involuntary rections to questions, those reactions tell the maching how much you reacted to certain questions and those reactions are the telling factor.

All lies create a reaction, all lies, not just a lie in front of a cop, that is the part you keep skimming over and I refuse to let you get away with.

Do you know what it means when you look up and to the right after I ask you a question? Do you know what it means if you look down and to the left?

This is a well established scienc, that is only refuted with junk science in the persuit of lawyers to get criminals off for their crimes.

I posted a non bias article sighting the fallibility of the polygraph. You ignored it and attempted to dismiss me as a "scared criminal drug addict". Pathetic!

It was not biased and I have personal knowledge of trying to beat these machines that clearly tell me that if the machine is in good working order and you have an experienced operator, the test is very accurate.

I have never said there was never errors, but the very few errors that do occur is not the fault of the machine itself and is instead the mistake of the operator.

That is why some people will have several tests, each from different people when the situation is very sensative, the use of several tests makes the overall results as close to 100% as is possible in this world.

Start backing up your assertions in this debate or I will have to dismiss you as mentally unstable. Your anecdotal "expertise" will no longer be accepted as suffice.

I could care less what you say on my experience, obviously my experience in the real world is more powerful than your never being involved in these tests in any way so you want to dismiss my greater experience to make your point.

Think what you want, I could care less, but I will not let you get away with making false claims.

You said yourself the tests were 98% reliable, why would any loving parent not give their child that 98% chance?

It has happened many many times. Despite TJ's flailing assertions, for inexplicable reasons.

Again, I never said they were 100%, but your wanting to dismiss something that is very reliable and accurate based on a 2% number. What things in this life are more reliable than 98%?

Especially when we are talking about police investigations. If you can get a 98% chance to assist the direction of an investigation, why would anyone not want that 98% chance?

Everythign is a tool, nothing is foolproof, the question is do you sit back and condemn everything that does not meet a 100% rating (that would be everything) or do we take the tools we have and use them as best we can?

 

[ToriAllen]

I don't trust cops. I don't trust voodoo machines that use magic.

You know, paranoia is a common side effect of marijuana?

I know lie detectors can work. Don't act as if I don't know this. I also, however, know that they can produce erroneous results and the reasons are far broader than mental illness and/or drug use. The reasons can be anything from a poorly trained examiner to a nervous subject. Setting a "control" doesn't always rectify this.

Lie detectors are unreliable which is why for the most part they are inadmissible in court. Nervousness, fear, or any kind of anxiety or emotion can show up as a lie. If the question produces a strong emotion, confusion, or anxiety then the answer could show up as a lie. Also, people who have little emotion, like serial killers, will pass with flying colors. I was hooked up to one in my biopsych class and realized very quickly how unreliable it could be. The questions are very important. Someone asked me if I owned a car. I own a van so I wasn?t sure if they meant vehicle or specifically car. You could see my vitals rising while I thought about how to answer.

I clearly gave my opinion that your assertions of never taking the test are based on not truly being in that situation and I believe that if you truly were in this situation and had the 98% chance to put more strength into looking for your child's abductors, you would give your daughter that 98% chance of more attention in the right direction.

I would take it, but I would be nervous about the results inspite of telling the truth because I try to read too much into questions.

I already said the person doing the test is more important than the machine, machines do what they do, this one measures involuntary rections to questions, those reactions tell the maching how much you reacted to certain questions and those reactions are the telling factor.

I?m sure an experienced person would try to ask questions that are as unambiguous as possible, but the mental state of the person taking the test has a lot to do with the results.

It was not biased and I have personal knowledge of trying to beat these machines that clearly tell me that if the machine is in good working order and you have an experienced operator, the test is very accurate.
I have never said there was never errors, but the very few errors that do occur is not the fault of the machine itself and is instead the mistake of the operator.

Emotional reactions can give false positives. I think I would be pretty emotional if my child went missing. Questions about my child would probably be distressing. In that case the experience of the operator wouldn?t make a lot of difference.

All lies create a reaction, all lies, not just a lie in front of a cop, that is the part you keep skimming over and I refuse to let you get away with.
Do you know what it means when you look up and to the right after I ask you a question? Do you know what it means if you look down and to the left?

That is just the different parts of the brain at work. Up and to the right is retrieving a memory where as up and to the left is generally seen as creating a memory. Down and to the left? I don?t think that is a sign of lying. I think it is similar to up and to the right but I would have to look it up. That is not accurate either. For most left handed people this test is switched because the sides of the brain are switched. There are a lot of ?right handed? people who were born left handed and forced to use their right hand. There are too many variables to rely solely on this and the same is true for the lie detector test.

That is why some people will have several tests, each from different people when the situation is very sensative, the use of several tests makes the overall results as close to 100% as is possible in this world.

I can see how that might help eliminate operator error, but it would not eliminate bias in the subject. I think one reason the accuracy for lie detectors is so high is that the subjects being tested are usually being tested for a reason. They are already suspects and there is already some evidence pointing toward them. Random testing of the general public might not be so accurate. I think there are benefits to lie detectors. If someone who is guilty fails the test it could intimidate them into confessing. I also think a refusal to take a lie detector test could point toward guilt, but should not be used as a definitive measure, just as failing one shouldn?t be used as a definitive measure. Other evidence is needed, and the collection of evidence and investigation of potential suspects should not end with a failed lie detector test.

 

[snafu]

. Someone asked me if I owned a car. I own a van so I wasn’t sure if they meant vehicle or specifically car. You could see my vitals rising while I thought about how to answer...

This is why they sometimes allow you to see the questions first. So you can get clarification. Also they would ask you the same question in different ways. “Do you own a car?” “Do you own any vehicles?” “Dose your husband own a car?” And then they do the test multiple times. This brings it closer to the truth.

Yes they can be decived. I seen a case on Court TV where a lady was abducted by a guy who shot her husband. He told her it was a hunting accedent. She had Stockhome syndrom and belivedd him. Later she recanted and came foward with the abduction.They both took the lie detector test. He passed the test and she failed. I'm not sure how the tests where administered. Later it was found he was guilty by forensics.

 

[timesjoke]

Emotional reactions can give false positives. I think I would be pretty emotional if my child went missing. Questions about my child would probably be distressing. In that case the experience of the operator wouldn?t make a lot of difference.

I will comment on this, I believe we agree on most of the rest, at least close enough to not worry about it.

I can see if you have never been formally questioned and tested on the machine how you may belive this is true, but a good operator will know your emotional and take steps to calm you down.

Like Snaf said, they many times will show you the questions ahead of time so there is no surprises and will extend the "warm up" longer if you need it to settle down.

Many times, people are asked to schedule again if the person cannot settle down because a real professional will not conduct the test under this situation.

Most of the negative studies showing some concern for the accuracy of this system are both based on older machines, not the newer computer controlled ones, and are counting "undertimed" results as failures. Sometimes a test cannot be decided, either from the person being too emotional like your talking about or for other reasons, the operator simply calls it undetermined and stopps the test. Those against lie detectors count that as a failure to work, so it brings down the accuracy numbers in a false way.

So, I hope this answers your concern about being very emotional bothering the test, because again, a good and experienced operator will not allow this to proceed if that is the case.

 

[hugo]

Jhony stated earlier that a false failed test would contaminate the jury pool. I got news for him their refusal to take the test has already tainted any potential jury pool.

 

[timesjoke]

Jhony stated earlier that a false failed test would contaminate the jury pool. I got news for him their refusal to take the test has already tainted any potential jury pool.

A very good point.

What people can imagine is much worse then what really happened in most cases, their imaginations run away with them.

While I feel very comfortable with a scenario where they accidently killed their child, I have always said that all we know for sure is they are guilty of child endangerment that resulted in the death of their child.

They could help to remove themselves from the suspect list by simply doing things like take the lie detector tests, by first agreeing to then changing their minds after they got this high power lawyer, they have made themselves look even more guilty.

Why do they need a lawyer who is known for keeping guilty people from being extradited? Why do innocent people concern themselves with that or even getting a lawyer that costs more then most?

Why is everythign about them and their problems?

If I was on a jury and knew the parents were acting this way, I know I would remember it. I would not convict based on that, but it would be pieces of the puzzle for me to consider to be sure.

 

[eddo]

It's called street smarts brother.

dude, I totally hear that in my head as Hulk Hogan talking...