DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on November 10, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
-
Investigator: Herman Cain innocent of sexual advances
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix.
Cain denied making any sexual actions towards Sharon Bialek and vowed to take a polygraph test if necessary to prove his innocence.
Cain has not taken a polygraph but Ward said he does have software that does something better.
Ward said the $15,000 software can detect lies in people's voices.
CBS Atlanta's Mike Paluska played Cain's speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain's every word.
If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here," said Ward. "He is being truthful, totally truthful. He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of."
The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read "low risk." According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.
During the section of Bialek's news conference where she says, "He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch."
During the analysis of that section the software said "high risk statement." Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.
"I don't think she is fabricating her meetings," said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired."
Ward said nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide use the voice software, including the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office.
Ward said the technology is a scientific measure that law enforcement use as a tool to tell when someone is lying and that it has a 95 percent success rate.
After listening to Cain's speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.
"When he directly talks about the allegations against him there is no high risk," said Ward. "It is low risk, which tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public."
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances)
-
Let the attacking the messenger commence
-
With a 95% success rate, my hypothetical gamble (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16147.0) should pay off big time. Of course, don't expect the MSM to help, by repeating this bit of information. Instead, expect reports of how "inadmissable" in a court of law such techniques are, and similar "reporting"
-
Terriffic! Now ,released from the shadow of racist attack, can coast into the White House without further effort.
-
Junk science meets junk politics.
There isn't a single court in either Canada or the U.S.A. that would accept polygraph evidence, let alone this quack's, but the right-wing nutsosphere, which had previously taken the concept of the presumption of innocence out of the criminal courts where it belonged and plastered it all over the non-criminal world of Cain's character problems, is now just as eagerly reaching for a technique which every criminal court in Canada and the U.S.A. has unanimously and emphatically rejected.
Go figure.
-
Junk science meets junk politics. There isn't a single court.....
LOL.....that didn't take long
-
LOL. Neither did your totally non-responsive response.
How would you feel if you were on trial for capital murder, and three eye-witnesses had already put you at the scene with a smoking gun in your hand and the victim's unarmed body still falling, and the D.A. asked the judge if he might just bolster his three eye-witnesses' testimony with an analysis provided by this quack and his machine?
-
And yet 70 law enforcement agencies use this technology as a tool. This ends the matter for me, and it really should for any rational human being. Cain is one of the three candidates that I am considering voting for.
-
The headline: "Cain passes lie detector test"
Ah, well, er, ahhhhhh, ummm, not exactly. As it turns out it's just another example of people bullshiting themselves.
BSB
-
Junk science meets junk politics.
There isn't a single court in either Canada or the U.S.A. that would accept polygraph evidence, let alone this quack's, but the right-wing nutsosphere, which had previously taken the concept of the presumption of innocence out of the criminal courts where it belonged and plastered it all over the non-criminal world of Cain's character problems, is now just as eagerly reaching for a technique which every criminal court in Canada and the U.S.A. has unanimously and emphatically rejected.
Go figure.
Wern't you pointing out earlyer that this isn't in cort and the standards of Jurisprudence don't appl;y?
This is evidence, whether weak or strong, here it is.
In the court of Public opinion is the $15,000 software more convincing than the $40,000 woman?
-
Somebody coming in here throwing around the N word is not somebody I take seriously in their criticisms of Herman Cain.
-
The time to get worried is when RR does take you seriously.
BSB
-
<<And yet 70 law enforcement agencies use this technology. . . . >>
Well, now that is the problem. The law enforcement agencies are not entrusted with the determination of guilt or innocence in our respective countries' criminal courts nor with the determination of any issue in our respective countries' civil courts. The courts and not the agencies of law enforcement are entrusted with assessing the reliability of all evidence, from the testimony of witnesses to the results of mechanical and other tests of all kinds. And in their wisdom, they have decided that while they will listen to, and consider, the testimony of law enforcement officers and eye-witnesses and experts, they WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the results of polygraph tests or less-established techniques like this quack and his machines.
Why not? Because it's been shown time and again to be unreliable evidence. End of story.
<< . . . as a tool. >>
Sure, as a tool. There are many examples of how this stuff could be useful as a tool. Suppose a guilty suspect has told a hospital nurse named Emma Smith that he killed his wife. Suppose the operator is reading off a list of names to the suspect and the needle goes haywire as soon as Emma Smith's name is mentioned. The operator might not know why the needle went haywire, but he knows now that it might be a good idea to concentrate the investigation on Emma Smith for some as yet unknown reason.
Being useful as a tool does not translate into proof of guilt or innocence. It's just a useful tool that can produce leads or close off dead-ends before too much time is wasted on them.
-
<<Wern't you pointing out earlyer that this isn't in cort and the standards of Jurisprudence don't appl;y?>>
NO. I think it's important that we try to be accurate in representing what is said in this forum. I did not refer to "standards of Jurisprudence" but to the standards of the criminal law. I was referring in particular to one standard of the criminal law, which was the presumption of innocence. I said, or meant to say that the presumption of innocence does not apply in the civil courts and should not apply in our non-court settings, such as the campaign trail, the so-called "court of public opinion" or the way we arrive at daily decisions in our own lives. To apply a criminal standard of proof in any such instances would be evidence of sheer insanity.
<<This is evidence, whether weak or strong, here it is.>>
Yes, you are right. It IS evidence. It is evidence so weak that no court, criminal or civil, in either Canada or the U.S.A., will even look at it, so prone is it to error. They don't even want to have it introduced for lawyers and experts to argue over, because they know that even under expert scrutiny, it will be unable to produce any trustworthy conclusions. This is not MY opinion, but the opinions of our respective Federal Courts, of fifty U.S. State Supreme Courts and of 11 Provincial Supreme Courts here in Canada. That's a pretty huge body of judicial opinion. As evidence, polygraphs and similar machines are only one step above reading tea leaves.
<<In the court of Public opinion is the $15,000 software more convincing than the $40,000 woman?>>
Actually, it is the $40,000 woman who was the more convincing, since any court in our two respective countries would unhesitatingly admit her as a witness, whereas none of them would allow the evidence of that quack and his $15K software. If the public were so abysmally ignorant as to be unaware of these facts, then the 15K software would indeed be the more convincing, but I am firmly convinced that not even the American public is that fucking dumb. (That was an easy question to answer, although clearly the answer was not what you were expecting to hear.)
-
LOL. Neither did your totally non-responsive response.
Didn't require one. This isn't a court of law, Cain isn't on trial, criminally or civilly, the policy being referenced has a 95% success rate. And right on "q", in the fleetest of moments, you attempted to combine both the trashing of the messenger via the "junk science" retort, with a completely irrelevant point about this not being admissible in court
Both tactics I knew would be attempted, and you were so happy to jump right on in.
-
<<This isn't a court of law, Cain isn't on trial, criminally or civilly, the policy being referenced has a 95% success rate.>>
You must be smoking some powerful weed that is not available up here. If that thing really had a "95% success rate," it would be accepted as evidence in every civil court in Canada and the U.S.A., where the cases are decided on a simple "balance of probabilities," which means only that the plaintiff, to win, must present a case that is more likely than the defendant's, even if his case is only 51% more likely to be true than the defendant's.
The device's "success rate" will obviously depend to some extent on the skill of the operator. Also, "95% success rate" is a term that nobody has defined - - does it mean that in 95 tests out of 100, it has successfully identified test subjects who were not truth-tellers, in which case, I would strongly suspect that anyone so claiming would be a charlatan? Or, as is more likely, does it simply mean that in 95 tests out of 100, it is able to successfully identify certain questions as productive of far more stress and anxiety than other questions?
<<And right on "q", in the fleetest of moments, you attempted to combine both the trashing of the messenger . . .>>
Believe me, it was no problem to trash THIS messenger. A simple Google of the name, combined with my standard policy of "Go to Wikipedia first," produced all the trash I needed on this idiot, probably the ONLY lawyer, practicing or not, who has described the retiring Justice David Souter, of the U.S. Supreme Court, as a "goat-fucking child molester," and the only "journalist" I can think of who admits in writing that his public opinions are tailored to fit whatever his bosses' public opinions are. The ease of my trashing this guy's credibility, plus the fact that he's the ONLY writer so far to treat this polygraph-like technique as determinative of the credibility of any witness, via TV no less! should indicate to you, if nothing else does, that this stuff is junk science without even having to consider why two systems of Federal civil Courts, fifty systems of State civil Courts and eleven systems of Provincial civil Courts, do not accept evidence from these machines even as something to be argued over in court, even where the balance of proof required is a mere 51%. This "messenger" ("mouthpiece" is obviously the more accurate description) had already fully discredited himself, even before I had even heard of him.
<< via the "junk science" retort, with a completely irrelevant point about this not being admissible in court>>
What's "irrelevant" about it not being admissible in court when the very basis of its inadmissibility is the unreliability of its results in the civil courts of fifty States, eleven Provinces and two Federal governments? It's banned from ALL of those courts, just like the opinions of fortune tellers, tea-leaf readers and phrenologists. Against the unanimous opinions of the courts of 63 jurisdictions encompassing ALL of the courts of English- and French-speaking North America, you have chosen to rely instead on the opinion of that schmuck Erick Erickson? ? ? Good luck widdat.
<<Both tactics I knew would be attempted, and you were so happy to jump right on in.>>
That's hilarious. You expected me to trash the junk science of a junk scientist whose "evidence" no court will accept AND you expected me to trash the reputation of some sleazy right-wing dipshit, who's already trashed his OWN reputation right out of his own mouth? Gee, sirs, what kind of a crystal ball do you have, anyway?
Finally, for anyone who against all logic is STILL determined to believe in this kind of poppycock, I suggest that you simply Google this question: "Can you beat a polygraph" and you will get an overwhelming response, the gist of which is, "Yes, dummy, yes." Selecting just one quote from the avalanche, I choose this little gem:
<<To determine whether polygraph exams have any validity, the National Research Council conducted a major study that was released in 2002. The 398-page report is easy to summarize: Polygraphs are baloney. The report found that lie detector exams are so subjective and undependable—are they really measuring deception, or just fear, for example—that they are inherently untrustworthy.>>
(from an article in Slate, found on the first page of the Google search that I just suggested)
-
The title of this post "Cain passes lie detector test" is BOGUS, sirs, and you know it. Cain has take no such test.
Let Cain and all the women be peeped, as it will be amusing. But it will not make him fit to be president no matter what the results are. He will still be a blowhard. He will still be an inexperienced, ignorant crackpot.
-
The real sign that it's all sham was when Herm the Perv "challenged" his victims to take a polygraph if he did. The little piece of shit obviously knew that he could beat the machine with coaching or by paying off the operator, or he wouldn't have risked exposure to further humiliation. This is a great story, and with Gloria Allred at the helm now, it ain't going away anytime soon, barring a major outbreak of war somewhere. That schmuck that Cain hired not only is no match for Allred, but he's already got himself in hot water for attempting to threaten other victims of Cain against coming forward. He's a fucking disgrace to the legal profession - - even Forbes magazine had to reprimand the ass-hole. Hopefully, his state bar association will have something to say on this as well.
-
If XO had read the article he would have seen that Bielek failed this lie detector test. When she made her accusations against Cain, the machine read high risk, which means there is a 95% chance that she was lying.
-
It is NOT a lie detector test!
If YOU had read it, your would know this.
And it in NO WAY proves that this gasbag is qualified to be president.
-
The machine detects deceptive stress in the voice with a 95% accuracy. Yes it is a lie detector test. Police departments all across the country use it. And I see you updated your post to add more information.
-
........................or close off dead-ends before too much time is wasted on them.
Let us hope so.
-
The real sign that it's all sham was when Herm the Perv "challenged" his victims to take a polygraph if he did. The little piece of shit obviously knew that he could beat the machine with coaching or by paying off the operator, or he wouldn't have risked exposure to further humiliation.
The problem with your little theory, is that when he made this commnet, he wasn't undertaing a specific test, where he could supposedly "beat the machine". This approach was done independently, and applied to both the accused and the accuser. Oh I see, Cain arranged/paid off this fella to make this claim, and "acted" when he referenced a willingness to take a lie detector test, because that worked so well for OJ.......oh wait, ok, it worked so well for Hurricane Carter.......oh, wait
So, to make a long story short, you WANT to believe Cain is a supposed pervert, damn any evidence to the contrary. She said, so, and that's all you need. Willey said so, as did Broaddrick, as did Jones, but they can't be believed. But this woman, can, despite a 95% probability that shes lying, she's believable......because.....well, just because Tee says so.
Must stick with template....must stick with template
-
It is not what anyone call a lie detector test. And I fail to see how anyone can determine that 95% figure, either. People pretending to lie is not the same as people actually lying.
It is a lie detector test only in the Mythical Land of sirs.
-
Not in the conventional sense of someone sitting down, with a machine hooked up, but it still qualifies as a lie dector test, and unfortunately for you, your accuser that you and Tee are hanging your entire wardrobe on, not just your hat, has a 95% probablility that's she's lying about her specific accusation
-
<<If XO had read the article he would have seen that Bielek failed this lie detector test. When she made her accusations against Cain, the machine read high risk, which means there is a 95% chance that she was lying.>>
The problem here, and one of the main reasons such evidence is not accepted in ANY court in the U.S.A. or Canada, even in civil matters, is that what the machine "reads" and then interprets, is only as good as what the machine is programmed to read and interpret. And so far, nobody has developed any algorithm that can teach the machine to distinguish between possible causes behind the indicators of measurable degrees of stress that it is able to detect. In fact, technically what the machine detects is aberrant values or patterns in measurable physiological phenomena; it is only an assumption that such aberrancies are in fact indicators of underlying stress, let alone what kind of stress is producing the aberrant values or patterns. That's why it's "junk science" and that's why no court of law will even admit it into evidence.
The "95% accuracy" label is pure hooey - - firstly because the term is never defined, and in all probability would relate only to accuracy in finding measurable indicators of stress related to specific questions, NOT to accuracy in assigning an underlying cause to the "stress" allegedly detected; and secondly because the "95%" figure itself comes from the proponents of the machines, not from independent research organizations, which have routinely blasted such devices as basically unreliable. Obviously, if the machine really were "95% accurate" in detecting liars, there is no way on earth that it would be banned in all 50 state courts, all 11 provincial courts as well as in all federal courts of both Canada and the U.S.A. These courts have accepted all kinds of scientific evidence, from fingerprints to ballistics to breath analysis to DNA but every single God-damned one of them has refused to admit lie detector evidence of any nature or kind whatsoever. The simple reason for this is that nobody to date has ever been able to make a reliable lie-detector that was not pure junk science.
All of your and sirs' obstinate repetition of the supposed virtues of these things run smack into the solid wall of fact that you cannot avoid: if they were REALLY "95% accurate," no court would refuse them. In actual fact, ALL courts refuse them. You can keep banging your heads against that wall for the rest of the 21st century if you like, but that wall will still be standing long after your heads will have burst.
-
Unfortunate for Tee and I in what way?
Is this this a national debate in which we are the contestants?
Your argument that Cain has taken a lie detector test is simply nonsense.
-
Unfortunate for Tee and I in what way?
Becasue your girl has a 95% likelyhood of having lied about her specific accusation, regarding Cain, while Cain has the polar opposite of having very likely been telling the truth. But go right ahead and hang your hat on her rather unbelievable acount
And FYI, I never claimed "Cain took a lie detector test", merely that he passed one
-
It makes no difference what I believe or whom I believe. I will not be voting in any Republican primary. Belief in Cain's story will be reflected in part by those who do.
There is no lie detector test, except in your mind. Your belief in Cain's innocence is as significant as your possible belief in Tinkerbelle's ability to fly. And the "results" of this bogus "test" are even less important than that.
-
<<Becasue your girl has a 95% likelyhood of having lied about her specific accusation, regarding Cain, while Cain has the polar opposite of having very likely been telling the truth. >>
95% my ass. Only according to junk science and the quacks who practice it. According to the judges who run all of your Federal courts, all of the state courts, all of the Canadian Federal courts and all Canadian provincial courts, these Rube Goldberg contraptions aren't even good enough to get inside the courtroom door. That means all the judges of all 63 English- and French-speaking court systems in North America have rejected it as junk science.
<<But go right ahead and hang your hat on her rather unbelievable acount>>
Nothing unbelievable in her account at all, it's unfortunately the kind of story that happens every day. What doesn't happen every day is that four different women on the same payroll will come forward and each one of the four will maliciously fabricate a false accusation against the CEO of sexual harassment. Why didn't it happen to Mitt Romney, for example? Why did Herm the Perv change his story four times in the first two days if he didn't have something to cover up? It's HIS story that's "rather unbelievable" - - a "coincidence" of four different women all cooking up the same allegations about the same guy (or a "conspiracy" to do so) and a supposedly intelligent guy who can't keep his story straight until after he lawyers up - - either way, show me just ONE CEO who's been victimized by such a coincidence or such a conspiracy. Never happens. The guy is just plain guilty.
But go right ahead and hang your hat on junk science that's been rejected by every single court in your country and mine. If you build it (a house made entirely of bullshit) they will come.
-
<<Becasue your girl has a 95% likelyhood of having lied about her specific accusation, regarding Cain, while Cain has the polar opposite of having very likely been telling the truth. >>
95% my ass.
Them the facts....sorry that doesn't play well with your your own version of what is and what isn't believable. And you can despense with the irrevelent perservation of what is or isn't admissable in court. This isn't a trial, and your opinion on the "junk science" that Police depts all across the country use, is duly noted.
-
If Cain were a suspect in a rape and the police called him downtown and ran his voice through this software he would be cleared by the police and they would move on to other leads. This technology is good enough to use in 70 police departments across this country. I consider this matter closed, but Tee and XO want to avoid the facts because it doesn't fit their template. They want so desperately for these allegations to be true.
-
<<Them the facts....[that lie detector machines are "95% accurate.]>>
Oh, REALLY? ? ? ? ? Then you shouldn't have any trouble at all finding me independent research studies that have confirmed or established them "facts," should you?
And before you start, I'll help you out a little bit: <<To determine whether polygraph exams have any validity, the National Research Council conducted a major study that was released in 2002. The 398-page report is easy to summarize: Polygraphs are baloney. The report found that lie detector exams are so subjective and undependable—are they really measuring deception, or just fear, for example—that they are inherently untrustworthy.>>
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2005/01/can_i_beata_lie_detector.2.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2005/01/can_i_beata_lie_detector.2.html)
This seems to fit in seamlessly with all of the U.S. and Canadian courts refusing to admit these gizmos and their charlatan operators to provide any evidence at all in their courtrooms, nothwithstanding their ready admission of fingerprints, breathalyzers, DNA, ballistics, graphology and other scientific evidence on a routine basis.
And now, with bated breath, I eagerly await your revelation of the "study" that will blow those quacks at the National Research Council right out of the water. C'mon, sirs, I know you can do it!!
<<And you can despense with . . . what is or isn't admissable in court. This isn't a trial . . .>>
Uh, actually what you CAN'T dispense with are the REASONS why no court will accept them in evidence. The reason being, that every single time an attempt WAS made to receive them in evidence, the court heard all the arguments FOR receiving them and all the arguments AGAINST receiving them. And guess what every court in your country and mine has concluded after hearing all the evidence pro and con? Every court in our two countries, on a full hearing of the relevant evidence, decided that these machines and their operators were just junk science and as such completely unreliable in determining if a witness was lying or not. Which, strangely enough, was EXACTLY what the National Research Council also concluded in its major study of 2002. (see above)
<< and your opinion on the "junk science" that Police depts all across the country use, is duly noted.>>
Since you seem to live in a different country from the rest of us, wherein apparently it is left to the Police rather than the Courts, to determine whether a witness is lying or not, I will clue you in to exactly how the police departments in the U.S. and Canada use the lie detector - - as a tool. What kind of tool? An investigative tool, one that, by finding seemingly aberrant physiological responses to certain words or questions, helps focus the investigation in directions that might otherwise have seemed of secondary or tertiary interest only.
A secondary use of lie detectors by the police, and IMHO not a very legitimate one, is to intimidate the suspect into a confession. As in "Alright, son, your buddy in the next cell has already told us what really happened. And this is your last chance to show some cooperation and just tell us the truth for once in your fucking life, because next stop, kid, is the lie detector in the next room, and it's gonna find it all out anyway, so do yourself a favour and give me some reason that I can tell the court, "He did cooperate with the investigation, Your Honour," and still be able to look at myself in the mirror every morning.
So that's the reason the police use the machines as investigative tools, and not in a pointless exercise to determine who's lying or not, because no matter what they determine, the courts would not accept the evidence anyway.
-
<<If Cain were a suspect in a rape and the police called him downtown and ran his voice through this software he would be cleared by the police and they would move on to other leads. >>
ROTFLMFAO. That is just total bullshit. How do you know what the cops would do if the machine cleared his voice? That's just not how the police use those machines, or shouldn't be. If they ever cleared a suspect and the guy then went out and did some more rapes, the new victims could sue the ass off any cops dumb enough to give the guy a pass because he beat the machine. What possible evidence do you have for such a ridiculous claim?
<<This technology is good enough to use in 70 police departments across this country.>>
Yeah, for the limited purposes I outlined in another post in this thread. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE - - if it's 95% accurate in the way that you say it is, why won't a single court accept it? One good reason would suffice.
<< I consider this matter closed>>
Yeah, sure, Declare Victory Hit ENTER.
<< . . . but Tee and XO want to avoid the facts because it doesn't fit their template. >>
HUH?? EXCUSE ME? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? What "facts" did I want to avoid? The fact of the National Research Council study of 2002 that found the devices totally worthless? The fact that not a single court in either the U.S. or Canada will accept them for either criminal or civil trials? It does seem to me that the only persons avoiding the facts in here are you and sirs. You have no facts at all to support your junk science and instead misconstrue the purposes for which the police use the machines and the ignore completely the fact that it is not the job of the police to make the final determination as to whether a witness is lying or not, that job being left to the courts. You ignored every single fact that was offered to you so that you could accept a junk science that no court in Canada or the U.S. would accept.
<<They want so desperately for these allegations to be true.>>
Well here's the difference. YOU want so desperately for them to be false. But in your desperation you reach for junk science and looney conspiracy theories because it's all you have. And of course you ignore every fact that is put in front of you. Desperate though we may be to want to see Herm the Perv get his comeuppance, we have relied ONLY on fact, on common sense and in agreement with all of the courts of our two respective countries. And personally, much as I loathe the Hermster for being the despicable human being that he is, I actually wouldn't mind seeing him as President of the U.S.A. fpr several reasons, one being that he's the President you actually deserve.
-
What possible evidence do you have for such a ridiculous claim?
I can't remember the trial but the father of the murdered girl was asked by the police to go downtown and submit to a lie detector test. He agreed to answer every question to rule himself out as a suspect. And that is what happened.
-
I'm actually waiting for some documentation by Tee that shows all these lawsuits aimed at those law enforcment agencies using this "junk science" Shouldn't be hard
-
<<I'm actually waiting for some documentation by Tee that shows all these lawsuits aimed at those law enforcment agencies using this "junk science" Shouldn't be hard>>
I'm afraid you'll be waiting an awfully long time, because I actually helped you out in this thread by showing you some of the ways the police put the machine to legitimate use as an investigative tool.
If I might repeat something else that I've already said many times, in the hopes that this time you might actually remember it, is that no court, whose business it is to determine if a witness is lying or not, is willing to accept the use of these things.
-
no court, whose business it is to determine if a witness is lying or not, is willing to accept the use of these things.
That's not exactly true, is it? There have been some state and federal courts that have utilized them. Doesn't New Mexico allow for the use of polygraphs as evidence? You may want to check that.
-
In 1973 in State v. Dorsey, the New Mexico Supreme Court found that polygraph tests are admissible as long as three requirements are met. The polygraph operator must be competent, the procedure must be reliable and the tests on the subject must be valid.
Then in 1983, the New Mexico legislature passed the Rule of Evidence law allowing polygraph evidence to be admitted as evidence at the judge's discretion if all requirements were met.
http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/technology/new-lie-detector-fmri.aspx (http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/technology/new-lie-detector-fmri.aspx)
-
<<I'm actually waiting for some documentation by Tee that shows all these lawsuits aimed at those law enforcment agencies using this "junk science" Shouldn't be hard>>
I'm afraid you'll be waiting an awfully long time
That what I kinda thought. Damn them pesky facts
-
What facts? Was Cain polygraphed in New Mexico?
Your bogus voice-stress goober technology is not accepted by any court, anywhere.
-
It IS accepted by law enforcement across the country, as you and tee keep needing to be reminded, Cain isn't on trial, so your continued court references are moot
-
If it is not valid in court, it is not valid anywhere. Cain's fitness will be determined by a small number of Republican voters in a few primaries. Your silly voice stress "test" will not be any important factor.
-
In what court did Bialek submit her fraudulent accusations?
-
If it is not valid in court, it is not valid anywhere. Cain's fitness will be determined by a small number of Republican voters in a few primaries. Your silly voice stress "test" will not be any important factor.
You are correct that Cains fitness will be determined by GOP primary voters. I think the voice stress test results could influence some fence sitters who might not have supported Cain had the results not been published.
-
In what court did Bialek submit her fraudulent accusations?
D'oh ;)
-
Do we need a junk science advisory board?
I understand the principals if voice stress analisis, but I have no idea how thouroughly it has been tested.
-
If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue.
BSB
-
<< I understand the principals if voice stress analisis, but I have no idea how thouroughly it has been tested.>>
Shouldn't be hard to find out - - sirs is out looking for the test results as we speak. Should be back anytime now. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
<<If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue. >>
Gloria Allred is making them do it.
-
If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue.
BSB
Are you kidding?
Think about it , the more the attack looks vicious and unwarranted and untrue the more the Cain campaign gets good from it.
-
Bingo
-
http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm (http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm)
This article downplays a low dependability score.
What Is VSA?
VSA software programs are designed to measure changes in voice patterns caused by the stress, or the physical effort, of trying to hide deceptive responses.[4] VSA programs interpret changes in vocal patterns and indicate on a graph whether the subject is being "deceptive" or "truthful."
Most VSA developers and manufacturers do not claim that their devices detect lies; rather, they claim that VSA detects microtremors, which are caused by the stress of trying to conceal or deceive.
VSA proponents often compare the technology to polygraph testing, which attempts to measure changes in respiration, heart rate, and galvanic skin response.
Even advocates of polygraph testing, however, acknowledge its limitations, including that it is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law; requires a large investment of resources; and takes several hours to perform, with the subject connected to a machine. Furthermore, a polygraph cannot test audio or video recordings, or statements made either over a telephone or in a remote setting (that is, away from a formal interrogation room), such as at an airport ticket counter. Such limitations of the polygraph—along with technological advances—prompted the development of VSA software.
........................
This led some researchers to suggest that if there is no jeopardy, there is no stress—and that if there is no stress, the VSA technology may not have been tested appropriately.[7]
The NIJ-funded study was designed to address these criticisms by testing VSA in a setting where police interviews commonly occur (a jail) and asking arrestees about relevant criminal behavior (drug use) that they would likely hide.[8]
Our research team interviewed a random sample of 319 recent arrestees in the Oklahoma County jail. The interviews were conducted in a relatively private room adjacent to the booking facility with male arrestees who had been in the detention facility for less than 24 hours. During separate testing periods, data were collected using CVSA®and LVA.
The arrestees were asked to respond to questions about marijuana use during the previous 30 days, and cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP use within the previous 72 hours. The questions and test formats were approved by officials from CVSA® and LVA. The VSA data were independently interpreted by the research team and by certified examiners from both companies.
Following each interview, the arrestee provided a urine sample that was later tested for the presence of the five drugs. The results of the urinalysis were compared to the responses about recent drug use to determine whether the arrestee was being truthful or deceptive. This determination was then compared to the VSA output results to see whether the VSA gave the same result of truthfulness or deceptiveness.
Can VSA Accurately Detect Deception?
Our findings suggest that these VSA software programs were no better in determining deception about recent drug use among arrestees than flipping a coin.
http://www.cvsa1.com/ (http://www.cvsa1.com/) This one is almost a sales pitch.
The NITV® is the manufacturer and sole source for the patented Computer Voice Stress Analyzer® II with the Final Analysis Confirmation Tool® (FACT®) scoring algorithm, U.S. Patent Numbers 7,321,855 and 7,571,101. The FACT was tested by major metropolitan law enforcement agencies and found to be 98% accurate. The CVSA® II is used by 1,800 local, state and federal agencies, as well as by US Military Special Operations and Intelligence units. The CVSA® is the only voice stress analyzer with Voice Imaging™ Technology, Report Auto-Write, and a Patented scoring algorithm.
And there is an ap for that.
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/19/no-lie-voice-stress-analysis-on-iphone/ (http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/19/no-lie-voice-stress-analysis-on-iphone/)
-
Boy, they have an ap for everything, now adays ;D
-
Wow, really have to thank R.R. for the New Mexican case in which polygraph evidence WAS admitted in court. I was totally unaware until now of ANY U.S. jurisdiction in which polygraph evidence was admissible. The Wikipedia article on admissibility of polygraph evidence is clear that this evidence is barred from any Canadian courtroom by virtue of a Supreme Court of Canada decision, also that whereas the Supreme Court of Australia has not yet ruled on the issue, the highest State court to rule on the issue (New South Wales) has barred the use of polygraph evidence and in Europe generally the use of the polygraph is not even common in police forces. In Germany, no court can use polygraph evidence.
According to Wikipedia, the picture in the U.S.A. is less clear. New Mexico seems to be the only state to allow polygraph evidence before juries; however it seems that 19 states (roughly 40%) will allow polygraph evidence by stipulation, which I imagine means if both parties are willing to admit it. If I'm correct in this, it's certainly an indication that even the 19 states that admit polygraph evidence by stipulation don't think very highly of the technique - - can you imagine any court today that is willing to admit, say, fingerprint, or DNA, or ballistics or Breathalyzer evidence by stipulation only?
So instead of polygraph evidence being barred in EVERY court, it's basically barred in MOST courts. Whether police use it or not is ridiculously irrelevant, unless you believe that it's OK to let the police determine anyone's guilt or innocence and courts aren't really necessary. Well, actually, since I am dealing with hard-core conservatives here, maybe that is exactly how they DO feel.
I think the overall picture on polygraphs is generally as I originally stated it, only instead of NO courts admitting polygraph evidence, it turns out that one state (New Mexico) will admit it, and 19 others will do so by stipulation, which still indicates an extremely low opinion of the quality of that evidence. Polygraphs are still regarded as junk science by the majority of jurisdictions in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia. Also, it seems (from the same article) that the High Court of Israel has ruled that the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device.
The Wikipedia article referred to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States)
And of course the National Research Council's extensive study of the polygraph from 2002 still stands as further evidence that the polygraph is still what the courts of most jurisdictions consider it to be, i.e., junk science.
The voice stress analysis ("VSA") is, IMHO, of even lower reliability than the polygraph, so the so-called "lie detector" test which The Perv purportedly passed and one of his victims purportedly failed, is junk science even lower than polygraph junk science. Thanks to plane for the VSA evaluations he had dug up, which I haven't had time to review yet, but will get around to very soon.
-
So instead of polygraph evidence being barred in EVERY court, it's basically barred in MOST courts. Whether police use it or not is ridiculously irrelevant, unless you believe that it's OK to let the police determine anyone's guilt or innocence and courts aren't really necessary.
No, actually, the irrelevent part is to keep bringing up whether a lie detector test is admissibale in a court or not. Putting aside another FACT, that U.S. courts have allowed it as admissable, Cain isn't on trial, nor is his accuser
-
<<No, actually, the irrelevent part is to keep bringing up whether a lie detector test is admissibale in a court or not.>>
BINGO! and yet again the man misses the same point. Well you're at least consistent. Why is it so hard to get such a simple point? Willful blindness? Willful ignorance?
I'll try one more time. The courts do not accept or reject different kinds of evidence capriciously, waking up one morning and deciding, for no good reason, "Hey!!! Today, let's ban all fingerprint evidence." Or, "Hey!!! Today let's ban polygraph evidence!"
Polygraph evidence only gets banned in a court when one party before the court asks the court to accept it. The other party objects. Each party calls witnesses, and produces evidence, on the one side trying to prove that the polygraph is a reliable detector of truth and falsehood and therefore should be accepted as evidence, and the other side trying to prove exactly the reverse. In each case, the judge or judges of the court listen to ALL the evidence for and against the polygraph and then come to a decision on its scientific reliability. IN AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICAN COURTS, FOR ALL CANADIAN COURTS, ALL EUROPEAN COURTS AND ALL AUSTRALIAN COURTS AND THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, the conclusion of all those judges after hearing all that evidence is very plain: POLYGRAPHS ARE JUNK AND POLYGRAPH SCIENCE IS JUNK SCIENCE. Period. End of story. Get it now?
So the "news" that The Perv "passed a lie detector test" is basically meaningless. VSA tests, which is what The Perv actually DID pass, are even less proven than polygraphs. Therefore his "passing" of a junk science test is virtually meaningless. It's like saying that his tea leaves were read by an expert who was able to determine from them that he never lies.
<< Putting aside another FACT, that U.S. courts have allowed it as admissable . . . >>
A distinct MINORITY of US Courts have accepted polygraph evidence, all but one on stipulation only, which means that even those states consider it to be of very low probative value.
<<Cain isn't on trial, nor is his accuser>>
The point, once again, is not that anyone's on trial, but that the VSA test which The Perv "passed" and one of his victims "failed" is pure junk science and means about as much as a tea-leaf reader's opinion.
-
<<No, actually, the irrelevent part is to keep bringing up whether a lie detector test is admissibale in a court or not.>>
BINGO! and yet again the man misses the same point. Well you're at least consistent. Why is it so hard to get such a simple point? Willful blindness? Willful ignorance?
No, just factually, Cain passed one, and your girl didn't. Sorry
-
<<No, just factually, Cain passed one, and your girl didn't. >>
Sure, but "passed one" WHAT? Passed one junk science test? THAT'S his defence, that he passed a junk science test?? If the test is junk science, then it's absolutely meaningless whether he passed or failed it.
Is that point really so difficult for you to understand? ? ?
-
Passed a test, used by law enforcement thru-out the country, to help ascertain if one is telling the truth or not, and now we know also admissbale in a court of law, though as we've already referenced, is irrelevent
THAT "what"
-
Well, maybe we're getting closer to it.
Passed a test used by some cops as a rough screening device to see who's truthful or not, for the purposes of helping to streamline their investigation but not considered good enough by an overwhelming majority of the courts for determining the truthfulness of any witness testifying before judges who will make the ultimate determination of the truth.
-
The only reason that story was released concerning the voice stress analyzer is the same reason Allred held her press conference, to sway public opinion.
-
Polygraphs are accepted by many employers , including the US government for the purpose of employee screening , at hireing and finding pilferers to fire.
Is this pertinant?
I am trying to remember which of us rejected the "presumption of innocence" because it was valid only in court.
-
There are at least three reasons courts won't accept that kind of evidence. One is the "junk science" nature of the technique, which actual studies have shown is about as accurate as flipping coins. Another is that with proper coaching and practice beforehand, many people can beat the machine. And another is that jurors, being relatively unsophisticated, may be inclined to give the machine more respect than it actually deserves, due to their belief in science and technology in general.
I think that the general public, being relatively unaware of the first two factors mentioned, is probably unduly worshipful of the "correctness" of science and technology, and so The Perv may in fact have has some success with the release of the VSA analysis due to the last-mentioned factor.
-
......., is probably unduly worshipful of the "correctness" of science and technology,......
Well said!
To believe in the word of someone because if his lab coat , is akin to believeing in the words of someone who has a stole and vestments.
-
<<Polygraphs are accepted by many employers , including the US government for the purpose of employee screening , at hireing and finding pilferers to fire.>>
Well, employee screening isn't meant to be accurate at all, it's just an attempt to "clear the decks" or "winnow" the crowd of applicants so that whoever's left is a lot less likely to become a problem employee if hired. It's a rough tool, and accuracy in detecting liars is not the criterion. If the machine identifies some real liars and also mis-identifies some honest people with false positives, for the purposes of the employer, as long as there is a good-sized pool of candidates remaining, the machine has served its purpose. If you need ten good apples for baking some apple pies and an apple-sorting machine takes a couple of hundred apples, detects about 150 bad apples and also throws out 20 good ones as well, you're still left with thirty apples, all good, from which to choose ten for your pies. That's the principle of screening.
Employee hiring - - far as I can tell, same as screening.
Finding pilferers? Far as I can tell, if an employee denies pilfering and is fired only because the machine says his denial is a lie, I'd say he's got great cause for a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.
<<Is this pertinant?>>
Not really, because we're not dealing with any random schmuck of no particular sophistication. We're dealing with a pervert who has a lot of money and is able to purchase all the coaching and practice he needs to beat the machine and/or to buy the right man to analyze his TV appearances. In Cain's case, I can say with total confidence, the "passing" of the test is 100% meaningless. Which is not to say that it won't influence plenty of ignorant couch-potato schmucks who don't know any better.
<< I am trying to remember which of us rejected the "presumption of innocence" because it was valid only in court.>>
What I said was that the "presumption of innocence" originated in the English criminal courts at a time when over 250 distinct criminal offences carried the death penalty. We in Canada (Nova Scotia) for example, carry the dubious distinction of having hanged a 12-year-old servant girl for the offence of stealing a silver spoon from her employer. So it was very important for a court of such fucking barbarians to at least try to limit their barbarism to such victims who were actually guilty of what they were charged with.
The presumption of innocence was carried over into modern times, on the theory that criminal convictions, with or without further penalties of incarceration, carried a stigma comparable in seriousness to the infliction of the death penalty, and therefore that the criminal courts must still bend over backwards to ensure that no innocent man or woman would be unfairly stigmatized with a criminal conviction if actually innocent.
However most decisions in our lives are not made to such rigorous standards. If I have to decide whether or not Herman Cain is a loathesome creep, and my decision doesn't involve penalties or jail time for the Hermster, much less the sentence of death, the standards by which the decision is made have to be somewhat relaxed. So the standards of criminal proof (guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, etc.) are not applied.
This doesn't prevent anyone from applying whatever standard of proof he chooses to any particular set of circumstances. The problem is one of practicality and rationality - - I won't take my umbrella with me unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it will rain; if there are twenty of my son's favourite cookies missing from the cookie jar, even though my wife hates those cookies, I won't break my son's presumption of innocence and will insist on proof beyond a reasonable doubt before blaming him for taking the cookies. In real life, presumption of innocence is rare. It's counter-intuitive. The reason the concept was even invented in the first place was that most people just don't think like that, just don't use "presumption of innocence" in their own lives outside the courtroom.
The other problem is consistency - - people who insist on giving Cain the presumption of innocence in the face of all the indications that he's not innocent, yet never even thinking of presumption of innocence in alleging that Obama's a Muslim, born in Kenya, a socialist, a hater of white Americans, etc.
-
I am trying to remember which of us rejected the "presumption of innocence" because it was valid only in court.
You can't recall either?
-
Sure I recall. I was quoting you saying that YOU couldn't recall.
-
Sure I recall. I was quoting you saying that YOU couldn't recall.
Terriffic!
Who WAS it that was telling us that the evidence against Herman Cain did not have to overcome a presumption of innocence because in the court of public opinion the standards of a court room do not apply?
-
I mentioned it, but I don't think I was the only one.
It is true, in any case. Cain's fate will not be determined in court, but in primary elections by voters.
-
And as Bt has said, this information of Cain having passed this type of lie detector test, while his accuser did not, is likely to sway those fence sitting voters, who were not privvy to these results, prior to it being released
-
It is unlikely that most primary voters will be be both aware of the voice stress "test" and believe it to be valid.
You seem to assume that the only reason not to vote for Cain is that he has been found not guilty of being a horndog. That is not the case. Cain is a Blowhard and a crackpot. He is prone to launch into gospel songs unexpectedly, which is not something many people think a president should do. He steals tax plans from video games and speeches from Pokemon. He is a joke to many. many people.
-
It is unlikely that most primary voters will be be both aware of the voice stress "test" and believe it to be valid.
Your frequently flawed Cain hating opinion is duly noted
You seem to assume that the only reason not to vote for Cain is that he has been found not guilty of being a horndog.
And right on que, you're wrong again with that deduction as, I've made no such assumption. I'm merely repeating what Bt referenced, that there are fence sitters, that may be swayed with this new information. You'll note that doesn't equate to "most primary voters". It's specific to those few fence sitters
-
Tee and XO sure are expending a lot of energy on somebody who will "never be nominated."
I think we know who they fear will be the GOP nominee.
-
Perhaps that's why so much energy is being used now, to try and keep him from being the nominee vs bringing this out if he were to run against Obama, as the nominee. A person like Cain scares the snot out of the Democrat status quo and their monolithic ownership of the plantation vote
-
that there are fence sitters, that may be swayed with this new information. You'll note that doesn't equate to "most primary voters". It's specific to those few fence sitters
======================================================
No, it is specific only to a few fence sitters who are aware of this "test" and who trust it.
Something else you are wrong about is that somehow Tee and I are part a huge conspiracy to reelect Obama and to prevent this Blowhard crackpot from getting the nomination. This is simply untrue. Cain has a much lesser chance of defeating Obama than Romney. Every poll indicates this.
I am in possession of all my snot. Not one booger has Cain scared out of me. And I am not any part of any movement to do anything. I will vote in what I feel are my interests and the interests of this country, and it won't be for Cain. I will be surprises=d if Cain is even on the ballot.
-
and again WRONG......who said anything about you & Tee being some part of an orchestrated conspiracy. And a fence sitter who was not privvy to the lie detection information, is more likely to be swayed one way or another, following the release of said information, depending on how credible they find Cain vs the accuser. Call it the Clinton approach to handling accusations
That must be some mighty fine weed you're inhaling this morning
-
You assume that 100% of the voters will have heard of this voice stress analysis and accept it as valid. You further seem to assume that the only reason NOT to vote for Cain is that he has been found not guilty of being a reprehensible horndog.That is not the case. There remain many reasons not to vote for him, such as not wanting to pay more taxes, which the 999 plan would do, and thinking that a president that can burst into gospel songs unexpectedly is not the sort of leader they desire. He is a blowhard and a crackpot.
-
XO,
What you may or may not understand is that there is a very strong anybody-but-Romney undercurrent to this primary season.
The revelation of the complaints against Cain during his tenure at the NRA was damaging but not fatal.
The Allred Bialek presser was damaging but not fatal. I think potential voters are reserving judgment pending further info. The stress analyzer is but just one piece of the puzzle. If Cain stays high in the polls expect the drip to continue, iof he drops they will stop and move to whomever is the ABR candidate of the month. Like Newt
Newt is rising in the polls because he has that vast store of experience and thought dealing with the issues facing this country.
Cain appears to shoot from the hip a lot and that could be his downfall more than any allegations coming from his NRA days and or the Chicago Attack Machine.
Perry has the best track record but damn he doesn't do well on stage.
Santorum and Bachmann are in a good position for a second look. Santorum more so than Bachmann, IMHO.
None is this is to change your mind, refute your position, or convert you in anyway.
What it is is the lay of the land as I see it.
-
I realize that the ultra right detests Romney for actually trying to do something about healthcare. He is too much a part of the establishment.They prefer those who get paid off under the table.
Seldom has any party had a worse assortment of potential nominees. Cain is a crackpot and a blowhard, Perry is an ignorant goober, Gingrich is a ghastly smartass that most people love to loathe, Bachmann is barking mad, Santorum is just weird. Huntsman is the only one that really could make an excellent president.
No one at this stage of the campaign wants to say they will consider being a VP candidate. I am not at all surprised that Cain said that. But his denial was goofy and illogical.
-
You assume that 100% of the voters will have heard of this voice stress analysis and accept it as valid.
Good gravy, I've assumed nothing of the kind :o
You further seem to assume that the only reason NOT to vote for Cain is that he has been found not guilty of being a reprehensible horndog
You tried that already, and I demonstrated how wrong you were at that time as well..."I've made no such assumption. I'm merely repeating what Bt referenced, that there are fence sitters, that may be swayed with this new information"
He is a blowhard and a crackpot.
Yea, we got that the 1st time you spewed that opinion
-
It isn't the ultra right that has a problem with Romney, it is the main-streeters.
And Cain just said he wouldn't serve under Romney.
-
What was the "Chicago attack machine" that BT referred to? The only "Chicago attack" that I know of is the hatchet job that the Chicago Tribune served up to order on Sharon Bialek.
I think a very large part of the GOP's November vote come from the absolute dumbest element in the electorate, and those are precisely the votes that could leave Cain if the harassment charges stick and could be brought back to him if the VSA analysis sticks. The voters who weren't going for Cain in the first place won't be pulled in by the charges, whether the charges are believed or not.
A lot of the Cain voters are just too fucking dumb to realize that any lie detector machine can be beaten with coaching and practice or that they've been found to be unreliable by reputable testing centres.
I would suggest that anti-Cain forces mount an immediate "opposition research" program on the VSA operator who allegedly found The Perv believable and Bialek not. He's got to be exposed as a fraud and a charlatan. Similarly, the technique itself must be exposed for what it is - - snake oil.
-
You have your homework assignment, liberal girls and boys. LOTS of energy.....this man must be defeated 8)
-
It is unlikely that most primary voters will be be both aware of the voice stress "test" and believe it to be valid.
You seem to assume that the only reason not to vote for Cain is that he has been found not guilty of being a horndog. That is not the case. Cain is a Blowhard and a crackpot. He is prone to launch into gospel songs unexpectedly, which is not something many people think a president should do. He steals tax plans from video games and speeches from Pokemon. He is a joke to many. many people.
You didn't notice how fast the sexual accusation submerged all the less sexy issues?
Finding a false accusation converts the issue that was shure to "toast" his canadacy into heat in his afterburners.
-
<< Finding a false accusation converts the issue that was shure to "toast" his canadacy into heat in his afterburners.>>
Not a single one of the accusations against him was false. Two of them settled for $80K total AFTER the pervert's ass was already out the corporate door, when there was no need to hush up anything. The odds of THREE unrelated accusers, all on the same payroll, surfacing about the same time, each with a false accusation, one of them not even bothering to file a claim (the usual motivation for false accusations, after all) are about a gazillion to one. And then a FOURTH accuser surfaces about a dozen years later, also from the same corporation, with yet another tale to tell on the same guy.
Factor in also the number of times The Perv changed his story in the first few days.
FALSE accusations? Please, plane, you are really going against all odds here.
-
Sorry you didn't get the memo.
Herman just passed a voice stress analisis that he was not even aware he was taking.
And his accusers failed just the same .
So the evidence that was against him but never made the court worthy quality is cancelled by the Junk science which is of course equally nonadmissable in court.
He still doesn't have half as many accusers as Bill Clinton , who was elected , reelected and tried in congress in the meantime.
The standard is set and surpassed the only reason to carry on against Herman now is racism.
Now to be repeated ad nausium Racism racism racismracism racism racismracism
racism racismracismracism racismracism
racism racismracism racism racismracism
racism racismracism
racism racismracism racism racismracism
racism racismracism racism racismracism
-
So you think that the attack on Herm the Perv, notorious Uncle Tom that he is, is based on latent liberal racism?
That is shocking!!
-
So you think that the attack on Herm the Perv, notorious Uncle Tom that he is, is based on latent liberal racism?
That is shocking!!
I know!
Isn't it incredable to see such indulgence in racism by these liberal latent racists?
Of all the racist liberals, liberal racists just have to be the worst.
And the latency Oh the latency of their racism!
Only makes it worse that it isn't overt as a latent feature it is all the more like the pure and anchient sin of racism considered as a racist virtue.
I can't tell you how this post has saved me from intellectual exercise , why have I ever done anything but connect whatever I don't like to the maximal taboo?
Its so easy!
Racism racism racismracism racism racismracism
racism racismracismracism racismracism
racism racismracism racism racismracism
racism racismracism
racism racismracism racism racismracism
racism racismracism racism racismracism
-
He still doesn't have half as many accusers as Bill Clinton , who was elected , reelected and tried in congress in the meantime.
The standard is set and surpassed the only reason to carry on against Herman now is racism.
==============================
You can't compare Cain, who has done absolutely nothing in government, has never been elected to anything, to Clinton, who was president when he was accused in the Monica affair. Monica was not molested. She was in love with Clinton, and her affair was voluntary.
Racism is NOT the only thing that separates them.
-
And look how conveniently the accusations of the far more egregious acts of Clinton's, that Cain doens't even come close to, in the accusation dept, get dismissed
No surprise there. There are double standards that must be upheld
-
He still doesn't have half as many accusers as Bill Clinton , who was elected , reelected and tried in congress in the meantime.
The standard is set and surpassed the only reason to carry on against Herman now is racism.
==============================
You can't compare Cain, who has done absolutely nothing in government, has never been elected to anything, to Clinton, who was president when he was accused in the Monica affair. Monica was not molested. She was in love with Clinton, and her affair was voluntary.
Racism is NOT the only thing that separates them.
You are totally not clear on the concept.
Monica never accused him at all.
Clinton has plenty of women who really did accuse him of heinous lewd behavior, Monica only confirmed that he was not a faithfull husband, hers must be the smallest concern even if it is the best documented.
-
BINGO
-
<< Herman just passed a voice stress analisis that he was not even aware he was taking.
<<And his accusers failed just the same .>>
You must be the one who didn't get the memo. First of all, the "test" that he passed has been adjudged by those who have tested it as totally unreliable. So unreliable that not a single court in the U.S.A. has yet accepted it in evidence. (New Mexico has accepted polygraph evidence, but not, so far as I am aware, VSA, which is the "test" that Cain "passed") Canada doesn't accept it. European courts don't accept it. Australia doesn't accept it.
So, the "test" that Cain "passed" (and that one accuser "failed") is a meaningless test. It's like his "aura" was read by a psychic and the psychic says that the "aura" is truthful.
Yes, the test is read by police. Does anyone here think that the police should be left to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying? NEWSFLASH!!! That is what we have COURTS for. Anyone here ever hear of a court of law? The police use the polygraph (and maybe VSA as well, who knows?) as a TOOL of investigation. Some suspects can be cleared through its use, but I would be amazed if a suspect against whom other evidence existed, or even a strong circumstantial case, would be off the hook as a suspect simply for passing a VSA test. That would be absolutely ridiculous. There is NO evidence to support that criminals against whom there is evidence of guilt are let out of the investigation only because they could beat a VSA.
<<So the evidence that was against him but never made the court worthy quality . . . >>
Huh? Who ever said that the word of an accuser is not "court worthy quality?" That is just plain nonsense.
<< . . . is cancelled by the Junk science which is of course equally nonadmissable in court.>>
Junk science is nonadmissible. Eye-witness evidence such as Bialek's and Kraushaar's is plainly admissible. Where do you get this "equally non-admissible" nonsense from? It is clearly wrong.
<< He still doesn't have half as many accusers as Bill Clinton , who was elected , reelected and tried in congress in the meantime.>>
Clinton isn't running any more. Wake up!! The issue is Cain, not Clinton. Let's agree - - Clinton is a worse horn-dog than Cain. But people loved Bill. WHY? Personally, I put it all down to personality. Clinton is not the Hermster. He's a good-lookin, smooth-talkin, laid-back babe magnet and the Herminator is not. Is it fair? No, but it's life. Everybody knows some charming con artist who gets away with a lot of shit that other people with a lot less charm get called out onto the carpet for.
But the Clinton issue is essentially nothing more than pure distraction. Maybe it IS unfair that Clinton's escapades were swept under the rug, while the Herminator tries to sweep it all under the rug but just can't get away with it. Too fucking bad. He is what he is, and he is now running for office, not Clinton. Is it any defence for this bull-shitting Uncle Tom pervert to claim that "Oh, Clinton did worse?" Why stop at Clinton? Why not "JFK did worse?" Where does it all stop? There are millions of individuals worse than Herman Cain, but that doesn't take away one bit from the fact that he's still a creep and a pervert, a louse and a liar. If THAT'S the people's choice, so be it. It's the choice they'll deserve.
-
You must have missed the other memo, that law enforcement across this country, not to mention some courts even, use this so called "junk science" to help ascertain truth vs not. So, until you can demonstrate that these same agencies use such things as psychic readings, outside of hollywood of course, your continued "meaningless" tactic is pure meritless
And Clinton is merely a reference to demonstrating the transparent hypocrisy on display by folks like yourself, as he's given a pass for acts far worse than your "uncle tomming perv", Cain is "accused" of. Your efforts to paint it as a distraction would indicate that the hilighting of that hypocrisy is hitting home
-
You must have missed the other memo, that law enforcement across this country, not to mention some courts even, use this so called "junk science" to help ascertain truth vs not. So, until you can demonstrate that these same agencies use such things as psychic readings, outside of hollywood of course, your continued "meaningless" tactic is pure meritless
And Clinton is merely a reference to demonstrating the transparent hypocrisy on display by folks like yourself, as he's given a pass for acts far worse than your "uncle tomming perv", Cain is "accused" of. Your efforts to paint it as a distraction would indicate that the hilighting of that hypocrisy is hitting home
No, I think he is getting it after all.
He is practicilly accepting that Clinton has to be forgotten before any Opprobrium can be spared for anyone accused of propasitioning women.
He is insistant that evidence be court quality before it be accepted , that this applies just as well twards hearsay evidence and the presumption of innocence, he will come around to soon.
-
*snicker*......I won't hold my breath. The rationalization double standard meter, is currently off the scale
-
You really hate double standards, don't you?
Cain will be judged on his fitness to be the nominee. His horndoggedness will not be judged at all. And Clinton is irrelevant to all of this.
-
You really hate double standards, don't you?
Yea, I do. It's why I'll blast republicans when they try to pull that crap as well
Cain will be judged on his fitness to be the nominee.
No doubt
His horndoggedness will not be judged at all.
His alledged "horndoggness" has been, since it was brought up. Allred made that a point of her news conference
And Clinton is irrelevant to all of this.
Yea, I realize your need to try and disconnect the double standard in play. Won't work, I'm afraid
-
It was mentioned, but will be judged only by the voters in several primaries as only a part of the total judgement of Cain's candidacy, as I have said before.
No one will be given a ballot in which they answer the question:
"Is Cain a horndog?" Check yes or no
-
<<You must have missed the other memo, that law enforcement across this country, not to mention some courts even, use this so called "junk science" to help ascertain truth vs not. >>
No, that is dead wrong, actually, it is the courts who ascertain the truth and not the police. The police merely conduct an investigation. If they are doing their job properly, they gather all the facts that bear on the case. When they think they have a case against someone, they take it to the D.A. or the Crown Attorney. The Crown Attorney's or D.A.'s job is to try to assemble a case, based on evidence, that can be taken to the Court, so that the Court (and not the police) can finally determine if the allegations against the accused are proven beyond any reasonable doubt or not.
If in fact, in the course of their investigation, they find that one witness is or is not telling the truth according to a VSA, this may affect how they conduct their investigation, either focusing on the guy if they think he's lying or focusing on more promising leads if they think he's telling the truth. But in NO CASE (except maybe in New Mexico) can they or the D.A. or Crown have the RESULTS of the test introduced into evidence, to persuade the Court that the guy is lying. The Court won't even hear such evidence and the reason for that is that the test is unreliable and has been proven to be unreliable junk science in every credible test of its performance. Were it otherwise, of course the Courts would accept it, just as they accept fingerprint and DNA evidence, where the science is in fact quite reliable.
But from what I understand of how the police use the machines, it's not so much to determine if the guy is lying or not, but more to (a) trick the guy into revealing the significance of other facts in the case or (b) finding out what he really knows about the case or (c) less legitimately, to bluff a suspect into confessing, although there are some real ethical concerns about that. It's a tool of the investigation, not a truth finder or "lie detector."
<<So, until you can demonstrate that these same agencies use such things as psychic readings, outside of hollywood of course, your continued "meaningless" tactic is pure meritless>>
If SOME agencies choose to use tools which have been proven to be unreliable, this can in no way prove the reliability of the machines, unless you trust the judgment of some cop as superior to that of, say, the National Research Council. If some cop were to tell you that some herbal remedy makes his brain sharper or cures his colds faster than any other remedy, and the National Institutes of Health were to tell you that there is no evidence at all that the product in question works at all, and in fact was quite unreliable in providing any kind of benefit whatsoever, who are you going to believe? The dumb cop who persists in using the stuff because HE thinks it works, or the qualified scientific researchers who have tested it throroughly and reported their results?
The courts are in the position of the researchers. They hear all the evidence why VSA should be admitted in evidence and all the arguments against. Presumably with both sides producing the results of tests and studies. Then they hear from experts on both sides, including an analysis of the tests that support the machines and the tests that trash them. Then they hear arguments for and against, based on all the evidence (including expert opinion evidence) before the court. Then they decide. And in every court in the U.S. and Canada (except New Mexico) the decision after all of that evidence, opinion and argument is always the same: the stuff is JUNK, the science is JUNK SCIENCE, and the results of the "tests" don't prove a God-damn thing. Every court. Every time. Everywhere.
Now sirs (and plane) THAT should tell you SOMETHING about how "reliable" such machines are. If it doesn't, if you still want to think, "Well they must be reliable if cops use them," then I give up. It's just not worth my beating my head any longer against this particular wall. We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
<<And Clinton is merely a reference to demonstrating the transparent hypocrisy on display by folks like yourself, as he's given a pass for acts far worse than your "uncle tomming perv", Cain is "accused" of. Your efforts to paint it as a distraction would indicate that the hilighting of that hypocrisy is hitting home>>
Clinton, in the context of Herm the Perv's fitness to serve, is clearly a distraction and if I read you correctly, even you are admitting that the only reason to bring Clinton into the thread is to back up allegations against ME and other liberals, of "hypocrisy" and "double standards."
OK, fair enough. It IS legitimate, IMHO, to ask a liberal who condemns Herm the Perv why the double standard? Not to take the spotlight off The Perv's qualifications and fitnes for office, but as a kind of side issue - - is it really fair to give Clinton a pass for the same thing that The Perv is now being crucified for?
From what I can recall of Clinton, the major affairs that got the most publicity were all about consensual sex, from Gennifer Flowers (who wrote about it in Penthouse where she confided that "The President eats pussy like a champ,") to Monica, who showed the poor guy her thong and pursued him till he relented and allowed her to give him a BJ in the Oval Office. And others. Paula Jones was the only one I take seriously, the other two (Brodrrik and Kathleen something, both had holes in their stories you could drive a Mack truck through.)
So why didn't I get all upset over Paula Jones? Because I still don't believe her. The trooper said she told him, coming out of the room, that she'd like to be Bill's girlfriend. As for whatever happened IN the room, it's all HSSS. Who the fuck will ever know?
With Cain, it's game over from the first day the story broke. FOUR separate accusers from the same company, two claims settled after his ass was kicked out the door, a third accuser coming forth 12 years later from the same company? A fourth accuser back in the day, who just didn't bother to file a claim, also on the same company payroll? GIMME A FUCKING BREAK. If you want to allege "conspiracy" in a case like that, you'd better have some fucking evidence that goes beyond wishful thinking and pure speculation. Also since when does an honest man change his story four times in a couple of days? He's a fucking liar and everything about the case says that loud and clear.
-
Yea, because the Police are never in the business of tring to determine the truth in a crime ;D Dont you just hate them pesky facts?? The one that includes that law enforcement and the judicial system USE this so called "junk science", in this Country, in trying to determine truth vs not.
Here's my suggestion....avoid traveling or touristing those states, Tee. You might just have to answer to said science.
Actually, now that I think about it.....you should consider committing a crime in exactly those juridsictions. Think of the lawsuits you could file with all the others folks wrongly investigated with such outlandish science tactics
-
OK, fair enough. It IS legitimate, IMHO, to ask a liberal who condemns Herm the Perv why the double standard? Not to take the spotlight off The Perv's qualifications and fitnes for office, but as a kind of side issue - - is it really fair to give Clinton a pass for the same thing that The Perv is now being crucified for?
From what I can recall of Clinton, the major affairs that got the most publicity were all about consensual sex, from .....................
Frankly I stopped reading right here.
Back up, correct the error of fact ,and try again.
-
<<Yea, because the Police are never in the business of tring to determine the truth in a crime >>
They investigate, they lay out all the facts they find before the DA or the Crown. The DA or the Crown, if he or she believes there's a case to be made, make the case for the prosecution. The defence counsel makes the case for the defence. The court tries to find the truth. That's how it works.
If it was up to the cops to find the truth, what are the courts for?
<<Dont you just hate them pesky facts?? >>
What pesky facts? That every single court in the US except NM rejects these machines, as does every single court in Canada, the courts of Australia, the courts of Europe (where the COPS don't even use them) and the courts of Israel? And that the REASON that none of these courts will accept them is that they are JUNK SCIENCE? Or perhaps you were referring to the pesky facts of all the scientific investigations like the National Research Council's 2002 study and 398-page report that investigated these contraptions and found them to be totally useless?
Oh, I see -- you were referring to the fact <<that law enforcement and the judicial system>> USE this so called "junk science", in this Country . . . >> Well, I guess if "the judicial system in this Country" is restricted to the courts of the State of New Mexico and certain undefined "law enforcement" agencies, yes. The law enforcement agencies, whoever they might be, use them as TOOLS in an investigation, and the courts of the State of NM actually admit them as evidence to determine (subject to challenge by the other side) if a witness is lying or telling the truth.
So let's take a look at your faith in these gizmos - - on your side, one court out of fifty in the US, no other courts anywhere else in English-speaking or French-speaking North America, no European Courts , no Australian courts and no Israeli courts. Also on your side, some unnamed police agencies and on the other side, the National Research Council's exhaustive study and 398-page report saying they're junk.
You know what sirs? If this were a naval battle for the truth, your side would be sunk with the first salvo.
<<Here's my suggestion....avoid traveling or touristing those states, Tee. You might just have to answer to said science.
<<Actually, now that I think about it.....you should consider committing a crime in exactly those juridsictions. Think of the lawsuits you could file with all the others folks wrongly investigated with such outlandish science tactics>>
Well, since none of the junk science results would ever be heard in a court of law (unless I happened to be visiting New Mexico) I don't think I'd have anything much to worry about, sirs, nor do I think I'd ever be able to find anyone wrongfully convicted by junk science findings. And even if all this happened in New Mexico, I don't think I'd have any trouble finding a capable New Mexican defence counsel who'd find it pretty easy to impeach both the machine and its quack operator in front of any New Mexican judge or jury. But nice try.
-
If evidence must have a minimal quality for it to be considered by the public, what are we talking about?
None of these evidences have met the> admissable in court < standard.
-
<< If evidence must have a minimal quality for it to be considered by the public, what are we talking about?
<< None of these evidences have met the> admissable in court < standard.>>
You are quite clearly wrong. Here's how the evidence to date breaks down.
1. Testimony of all four accusers (if of sound mind): ADMISSIBLE in every court in the English-speaking world.
2. Testimony of Herm the Perv (if of sound mind): ADMISSIBLE in every court in the English-speaking world.
3. Results of VSA tests done on The Perv and Sharon: INADMISSIBLE everywhere except Courts of New Mexico;
admissible in 19 state courts ONLY IF BOTH SIDES AGREE
Clearly an overwhelming majority of authorities have found ONE TYPE of evidence (VSA) one helluva lot LESS admissible than the accusations against The Perv and his denials.
-
Obviously not so, none of these charges have been prosicuted in court at all.
-
<<Yea, because the Police are never in the business of tring to determine the truth in a crime >>
They investigate, they lay out all the facts they find before the DA or the Crown.
and IN THEIR INVESTIGATING, ITS NECESSARY, PRETTY MUCH MANDATORY, TO TRY AND DETEMINE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. It's kind of important when they go to arrest someome. I realize the need to try and find some form of (ir)rationalization to limit the damage these facts are causing your side of the argument, but good gravy, this is pathetic. You make the Police to look like a bunch of mind numb robots, sweeping up anything and everything, then just hand it over to the DA and say "here...you figure it out". It's a wonder not a majority of your country is under investigation, if not incarcerated ::)
<<Dont you just hate them pesky facts?? >>
What pesky facts?
The one that has both the Judicial System, AND law enforcment, across this country, using this "junk science", in order to attempt to ascertain who's telling the truth, and who isn't. Damn those facts, your attempted marginalizing aside. Completely torpedos the notion that this is all junk science, akin to tarot car readings and psychics
But "A" for effort in trying to take down that Uncle tomming perv
-
<<Obviously not so, none of these charges have been prosicuted in court at all.>>
lol
OK, in any court except in NM, if the cases were to be, or had been, prosecuted, the accusers' statements and The Perv's denials WOULD have been admissible and the VSA evidence would NOT have been admissible.
There are STILL different classes of evidence, even in the absence of a trial: what WOULD have been admissible and what WOULD NOT have been admissible.
Evidence is evidence whether or not a trial is ever held; it doesn't suddenly BECOME evidence just because a trial starts. The murder weapon is evidence of a crime, whether it's found or not, whether a trial is held or not. A court obviously has the right to determine what KIND of evidence it will admit or not, but the evidence doesn't cease to be evidence just because a court won't accept it or because nobody is ever put on trial.
If the evidence happens to be the opinion of a junk scientist that Sharon is lying or The Perv is truthful, it's still evidence of something (maybe just evidence of the beliefs of the junk scientist) but it's evidence that the court just won't admit because it's of no value in aiding the search for truth. The REASON why no court will admit this evidence is that it is UNRELIABLE, which means that unlike real scientific evidence, such as solidly based fingerprint or DNA evidence, which has a high likelihood of being reliable, the VSA evidence is based on junk science and thus its conclusions have no such reliability.
If the evidence is the evidence of an eye-witness, such as the four accusers, then as long as they are willing to so testify under oath in court, it becomes evidence before the court. Similarly whatever Herm the Perv may have to say in his defence, if sworn, will become evidence before the court. The court can't refuse to accept eye-witness evidence just because it doesn't like the eye-witness. The court can and does reject VSA evidence every time someone seeks to offer it to the court (except in NM) and the reason, of course, is that it's unreliable junk science.
So that is why there is a difference, even when no trial is going to be held, between junk evidence and real evidence, based on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence.
Similarly my opinion that Herm the Perv is a no-good, lying, Tomming, perverted piece of shit would never be admitted in any court of law, since (although solidly based on a purely logical evaluation of the available evidence) it would be considered irrelevant in trying to determine if The Perv sexually harassed or assaulted the four complainants. Because the VSA operator's opinion of The Perv's truthfulness and Sharon's dishonesty is based purely on junk science, his opinion too is irrelevant.
-
<<IN THEIR [referring to police] INVESTIGATING, ITS NECESSARY, PRETTY MUCH MANDATORY, TO TRY AND DETEMINE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. >>
But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is. All they have to do is build a case that a prosecutor will take to court, i.e., that both they and the prosecutor feel confident has a good chance of being proven in court. It is the Court that determines the truth of the accusations.
<< It's kind of important when they go to arrest someome.>>
You have a really skewed understanding of police work. They don't arrest some guy because they've found out the truth and have to inflict punishment on him for his crime. Arrest before trial is basically for the purpose of ensuring that he will appear at his trial, where his guilt or innocence will be determined. That's why in a bail hearing, the court doesn't even want to hear the details of the case against him, they only want to know the seriousness of the crime alleged (if it's capital murder, obviously, the guy is a huge flight risk because his life's at stake) and they want to feel safe (through posting of money bail, usually) that the guy will show up for trial.
<<I realize the need to try and find some form of (ir)rationalization to limit the damage these facts are causing your side of the argument, but good gravy, this is pathetic. You make the Police to look like a bunch of mind numb robots, sweeping up anything and everything, then just hand it over to the DA and say "here...you figure it out". It's a wonder not a majority of your country is under investigation, if not incarcerated >>
That's not at all what I said. The police aren't robots and they don't hand over a mass of random facts and tell the DA to figure it all out. If I could, just for a moment, get back to the real world, which you obviously have no connection with, it looks something like this:
First of all, the police do not investigate every crime, not even every murder. A guy can be poisoned, die a "natural death" and go to his grave with no one the wiser (except the perp) as to what really happened. Studies of policing have indicated cases where victims were murdered by ice-pick or small-caliber bullet fired into the brain through the back of the neck and no murder detected if external bleeding had been minimal or cleaned up.
Assuming signs of foul play are detected, police will investigate and try to build a theory of the case - - what happened. They will develop lists of suspects and try to eliminate the least likely, but the lists are preserved regardless of who is eliminated. They try to narrow it down to a single suspect or small group of suspects, and then try to build a case against each suspect. When they have finished building their cases, they bring them to the DA, who examines each case to determine if it's worth pursuing. The issue for the DA is, is there a reasonable prospect of winning this case, or is it more likely to get thrown out of court? The police don't simply throw a bunch of unorganized facts at the DA and say "Here, you figure it all out." That is just patently absurd.
Incidentally, if anyone wants a rough idea of how the DA's office determines if a case is good enough to take to court, I strongly recommend the TV show, Law and Order. It's a very well-thought-out show which is particularly good at showing the working relationship between police and prosecutors. The DA, "Aaron" is modeled on a real-life DA, Robert Morgenthau, and while the discussions between he and his staff, particularly "Jack" and his babealicious assistants are somewhat dramatized, the issues and the considerations that they argue over (sometimes with their police liaisons too) are IMHO highly realistic.
Polygraph or VSA analyses are never the subject of argument when a case is considered ready for court or not ready for court. Everyone understands that these things are meaningless and won't even be considered in evidence.
Obviously, there may be cases in which police feel strongly that they have a good case and the DAs or Crowns feel otherwise. It would be a very rare occurrence for the police to base their feelings on lie detector or VSA test results, but nothing is impossible. It would be akin to basing the same feeling on tea-leaf readings. Anyone with half a brain knows that the results depend on the operator, and on his observation and interpretation of measurable phenomena which could be related to stress, stress due to lying, stress due to embarrassment or fear, or stress of unknown origin. Or they could be related to factors other than stress but not yet identified. So, whatever the officer's feelings are about the case, if they are based on the test results of junk science, they are meaningless.
<<[Dontcha just hate them pesky facts that] . . . both the Judicial System, AND law enforcment, across this country, using this "junk science", in order to attempt to ascertain who's telling the truth, and who isn't. Damn those facts, your attempted marginalizing aside. >>
Well that's just not true. Those aren't "pesky facts," in fact, they're not even facts. By "the judicial system," you mean no courts at all in the USA, Canada, Australia, Israel and Europe, except for the courts of New Mexico. By "law enforcement" you mean some unidentified uncounted number of police organizations, and even there, the police have chosen, wisely or not, to use them as TOOLS of investigation, a distinction which you seem apparently unable to grasp. They do not use them to ascertain who is telling the truth, except in peripheral issues of lesser importance to the investigation. If the only thing in the whole investigation that points to a suspect's guilt is that he "failed" a VSA test, then there is no case to present and the police themselves understand that better than anyone.
<<Completely torpedos the notion that this is all junk science, akin to tarot car readings and psychics>>
It is BECAUSE it is junk science like tarot card readings and psychics that the courts will not accept it. End of story.
-
<<IN THEIR [referring to police] INVESTIGATING, ITS NECESSARY, PRETTY MUCH MANDATORY, TO TRY AND DETEMINE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. >>
But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.
LOL...priceless. I tell you what.....I'm getting the opportunity to take a Police ride along with local city's police department, within the next month. I'll ask them how important it is or isn't for the police to try to acertain the truth in a crime, or from a person/suspect, vs merely compiling evidence. I'll then get back to you, and the saloon, with what they tell me.
And FYI, it's the court that attempts to determine a legal truth. That doesn't stop the Police from attempting to determine who is or isn't telling them the truth. But as I said, if the officer(s) I ride along with, echo your belief, I'll eat some saloon crow
-
"..........that is why there is a difference, even when no trial is going to be held, between junk evidence and real evidence, based on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence.
This of course skips a bit, witness testimony in court is under oath and carries a penalty for perjury. Witness testimony before the press is not really the same standard.Similarly my opinion that Herm the Perv is a no-good, lying, Tomming, perverted piece of shit would never be admitted in any court of law, since (although solidly based on a purely logical evaluation of the available evidence) it would be considered irrelevant in trying to determine if The Perv sexually harassed or assaulted the four complainants. Because the VSA operator's opinion of The Perv's truthfulness and Sharon's dishonesty is based purely on junk science, his opinion too is irrelevant.
Your opinion is not logicly derived, Logic requires that you not skip over the inconvienient bits.
There are unfortunately many who share your opinion that only Black persons who are properly obedient to the Democratic Party are worthy persons. I am certainly glad that I am not black elese my opinions would make me a U-Tom and totally unable to talk to you.
-
<<LOL...priceless. I tell you what.....I'm getting the opportunity to take a Police ride along with local city's police department, within the next month. >>
Good. Hopefully you will learn something.
<< I'll ask them how important it is or isn't for the police to try to acertain the truth in a crime, or from a person/suspect, vs merely compiling evidence. >>
Of course if you ask the question like that, you'll not only sound like an an insulting ass to them, but you'll be barking up the wrong tree. Here's what you need to ask them:
1. Who is the ultimate determiner of whether or not a witness is lying, the police or the trial
court?
2. Do they use VSA in their work and if so, do they have their own in-house equipment and operator(s)?
3. Can VSA be beaten? Do they know HOW it can be beaten?
4. HOW do they use VSA in their investigations? Try to place the various uses in order of frequency.
5. What would they do if they found one guy who wasn't even a suspect in the case but walked in off the street for an entirely unrelated matter and by accident was given a VSA test related to their case, and he failed the test but in all other ways they had nothing against him and he had an ironclad alibi? Would they arrest the guy anyway and charge him with the crime, despite a lack of any other evidence and based solely on the VSA test, or would they say, fuck it the VSA gave a false result (let's even say they tested TWICE with VSA to be sure) and let him go, keeping him on a list of suspects, but pursuing the other leads? Or investigating him AND the other leads? What if their resources were limited, would they pursue him or the other leads they already had in mind?
6. What would they do if they had a suspect who had motive and opportunity and they'd already found some circumstantial evidence against, and then the guy PASSES the VSA twice? Believe the machine and let him go as a suspect, pursuing other leads and taking the main focus of the investigation off him, or keep going and trying to build the case against him, despite "win" against the VSA?
7. Ask him how he interprets the statement that law enforcement sometimes uses the VSA as a TOOL of the investigation, and whether or not he agrees with that statement.
8. Ask him what he makes of the fact that one VSA operator voluntarily performed VSA on a a videotape of the Herminator and on another videotape of one accuser, both speaking for public consumption and found the Herminator to be telling the truth and the accuser to be lying. Just how significant does he consider the VSA to be in determining who's telling the truth and who's lying?
THOSE are the questions you should ask this cop and I hope you do. Oh, and find out the rank and general duties of the cop, just to make sure that he is conversant with the procedure and its application. And how long he's been on the force.
I'd even suggest you print this out with enough space between the paragraphs for you to note down the exact responses, or if they let you take your laptop along, do the same thing digitally on-screen.
I'll then get back to you, and the saloon, with what they tell me.
And FYI, it's the court that attempts to determine a legal truth. That doesn't stop the Police from attempting to determine who is or isn't telling them the truth. But as I said, if the officer(s) I ride along with, echo your belief, I'll eat some saloon crow
-
<< . . . witness testimony in court is under oath and carries a penalty for perjury. Witness testimony before the press is not really the same standard.>>
OBVIOUSLY, but that applies to all the evidence before us right now - - the victims' statements, The Perv's statements, and the VSA. Even providers of legitimate scientific evidence such as DNA have to provide their evidence under oath AND satisfy the court that they are qualified experts and that their method is scientific and reliable. A VSA operator in court is no less testifying under sanctions of penalty for perjury than is any other witness.
My point is really that VSA is such junk science and so meaningless that no court will accept it in evidence, civil or criminal. And the cops are really not the ultimate authority on whether anything is or is not junk science. Most people get that they are mostly enforcement officers of no great mental status and are content to leave the determination of who is lying and who is not lying to the judicial system, whatever the cops may think about the subject. When a citizen is confronted by a criminal, he doesn't call on a Ph. D. in engineering, he needs someone big and strong enough to confront the criminal and haul his ass off to the slammer. When someone wants a determination of the truth, he wants somewhat brainier types. I am not anti-cop but with all respect, they've got their hands full dealing with what they already do, I don't need them to figure out who's guilty and who's not guilty. They are not the brainiest contingent of our society, and to their credit they don't claim to be.
<< Your opinion [that Herm the Perv is a no-good, lying, Tomming, perverted piece of shit] is not logicly derived, Logic requires that you not skip over the inconvienient bits.>>
Wrong again, since the only inconvenient bits in this case are The Perv's denials and the quackery of the junk-science operator. Logic requires that I discount these in favour of the more significant facts of the case, being, as I've said many times now, the improbability of FOUR accusers coming forward from the ranks of the same company, the $80K settlement for two of them AFTER the perp's ass was already out the door, the fact that The Perv was gone so quickly after the first claim was filed, the fact that The Perv didn't insist on the claims going to court so that he could vindicate his honour, and the fact that the lying Perv changed his story about four times in the first two days before he lawyered up. There is a mountain of fact there, and to a logical mind, it leads to only one conclusion. The Perv's denial, being self-serving, is obviously of little significance and the VSA analysis, being based on junk science, is of zero significance.
<<There are unfortunately many who share your opinion that only Black persons who are properly obedient to the Democratic Party are worthy persons. I am certainly glad that I am not black elese my opinions would make me a U-Tom and totally unable to talk to you.>>
LOL. plane, if you WERE a black, the odds are overwhelming that you would be an ardent Democrat and want nothing to do with the racist GOP or any Uncle Tom low enough to help them along in their racist program.
-
1. Who is the ultimate determiner of whether or not a witness is lying, the police or the trial
court?
It is illegal for police to submit a person to a DA as a material witness who they know is lying. If it was purely up to the courts, then the police would be required to submit everyone, whether or not they know they are lying, and let the courts decide, correct? Otherwise, the police are filtering out those who they think are lying, in other words making an attempt at determining the truth.
-
<<It is illegal for police to submit a person to a DA as a material witness who they know is lying>>
They do it every fucking day. However, you're correct. Not only is it illegal for the police to present such a person to the DA, it's illegal for the DA to present such a witness in court if the DA thinks he or she is lying. It's also illegal for defence counsel to present a witness to the court if defence counsel knows that that witness will commit perjury on the stand.
<<If it was purely up to the courts, then the police would be required to submit everyone, whether or not they know they are lying, and let the courts decide, correct? >>
In an ideal world, that's what would happen. But in the real world, the courts aren't built to handle that kind of workload.
<<Otherwise, the police are filtering out those who they think are lying, in other words making an attempt at determining the truth.>>
Well, that's an oversimplification. The primary task of the police is to develop a theory of the case that produces identifiable suspects and then try to build a strong case against the suspect(s) that the DA will agree to bring before the courts, with or without tweaking. In the course of the investigation, the police may encounter various leads, which need to be evaluated as worth pursuing or not worth pursuing. Some of these leads may come from witnesses whose motives or veracity is in doubt; one of the factors in deciding to pursue the lead or not can be whether the investigating officers believe the witness who produced the lead is lying or not, and one of the ways they decide whether the witness is telling the truth or not could be through VSA. That might be one officer's way. Another officer might believe he can "read faces" and still another believes in watching the hands. As a tool in the investigation, VSA could very well lead some officers to concentrate on leads that produce a solid case. That is not necessarily dependent on the VSA being correct in its analysis of any particular subject. A wrong reading can send the investigators down a trail that produces good evidence in the end just as a correct reading can lead only to a dead end.
In a nutshell, the police investigation can only lead to a case to be presented to the DA, which, if prosecuted, will enable the courts to probe and finally determine the truth.
And note: whatever the investigator's belief in the results of the VSA test, those results will never be allowed into the courtroom because they have been deemed to be unreliable. Further: if the police have VSA'd a witness and rejected him as a liar, that also must be disclosed to defence counsel, who has the right (unless he knows that the guy is lying, to present him in court as witness for the defence notwithstanding his VSA "failure," and it will be up to the court to determine in the end if the witness had lied or was telling the truth.
-
1. Who is the ultimate determiner of whether or not a witness is lying, the police or the trial
court?
It is illegal for police to submit a person to a DA as a material witness who they know is lying. If it was purely up to the courts, then the police would be required to submit everyone, whether or not they know they are lying, and let the courts decide, correct? Otherwise, the police are filtering out those who they think are lying, in other words making an attempt at determining the truth.
Precisely. So while Tee trie's to play the technical gaime of the courts being the final technical arbiter of the truth, that doesn't proclude the police from attempting to determine the truth of events, in a crime, leading to any subsequent court case. In fact, its part of their job description, otherwise its exactly how ami & myself earlier "It's a wonder not a majority of your country is under investigation, if not incarcerated", if it "wasn't necessary for the Police to determine what the truth is"
But as I told him, I'll ask the police officers, in my ride along, if finding the truth is not a part, if not an integral part, of what the Police do, and I'll report back on the answer
-
<<But as I told him, I'll ask the police officers, in my ride along, if finding the truth is not a part, if not an integral part, of what the Police do, and I'll report back on the answer>>
Your question as phrased is totally worthless, as I previously informed you, and on the GIGO principle, any answer to that question will be equally worthless.
I presented you with a clear set of questions that would shed some light on this from a police officer's perspective, at least if the officer knows enough about the subject to provide meaningful answers and I hope those are the questions you will ask.
-
All of this is interesting, but none of it is applicable to the Cain case, in which no one will ever be accused of any crime.
Only a few voters will decide whether Cain should be the nominee of the GOP.
I doubt they will decide in his favor, simply because half of them will almost certainly be women.
-
The half that are women are more likely than not to have skipped any womyn studies in college and believe in the whole concept of innocent before proven guilty. The stress analyzer just helps confirm that their initial impressions of Cain absent the attempted smears was correct.
What is strange about the whole Cain as serial harrasser meme seems to have only have happened during his years at the NRA. Nothing from Coca Cola, Pillsbury, Burger King or Godfathers, nor during his years as a radio host and motivational speaker.
Strange that.
-
Perhaps Cain simply has a taste for a specific sort of woman. Perhaps others acceded to his demands.
A woman who has been hit on as Bialek was would probably not go along with the "innocent until proven horndog" bit. There are more of these than you suspect.
We shall see how this works out. I say he loses.
-
<<But as I told him, I'll ask the police officers, in my ride along, if finding the truth is not a part, if not an integral part, of what the Police do, and I'll report back on the answer>>
Your question as phrased is totally worthless, as I previously informed you, and on the GIGO principle, any answer to that question will be equally worthless.
The hell its not....."But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.". Your whole line of irrationalization, in an attempt to discredit lie detectors, and law enforcement using them, is that the Police don't need, actually not even even neccesary to ascertain the truth
So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth. Your claim is that it is not. I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is
-
A woman who has been hit on as Bialek was would probably not go along with the "innocent until proven horndog" bit. There are more of these than you suspect.
My guess is they wouldn't be voting in a GOP primary. Women who judge men as a group would probably be Democrats.
-
Why would Democratic women judge men as a group and not Republican women? That makes little sense.
The results will be seen in the primaries.
Cain might lose for reason other than being a horndog. There is rather a lot to dislike about him.
-
Because Republicans view people as individuals wheras democrats lok as people as members of a group.
I see Herman Cain as a conservative who is black.
You see him as a traitor to his race, an Uncle Tom sellout. The only way that happens is if you slot him in a group and have expectations of behavior from that group.
-
Because Republicans view people as individuals whereas democrats look as people as members of a group.
Gimme a break! All I ever here in here is "you Liberals" this and "you Liberals" that.
I do not oppose Cain because he is an uncle Tom. I oppose Cain because he is a blowhard who could never get along with Congress and a crackpot whose 999 plan would raise my taxes and those of all save the wealthiest. I do not want to listen to Cain blow off in every evening news show about how people will not go along with his crackpot ideas.
People of all political persuasions regard people they do not know as members of a group: to some degree this is accurate: Germans like drinking beer: Norwegians like eating lutefisk: Jews often avoid eating shrimp. It is not accurate to suppose that all stereotypes are 100% accurate.
We will learn whether Republicans want Cain to be their nominee in the promaries. We MAY learn how women voted, if there are a sufficient number of exit polls.
Every pollster of every party divides voters up into groups and and subgroups makes assumptions about what will appeal to each group and major subgroup, and advertises accordingly. They do this because it works, and it works as accurately for Democrats as for Republicans.
Some people learn to recognize that each individual is an individual and does not march in lock step with a group. But this is pretty much useless as a campaign tool.
I see Herman Cain as a Black guy who calls himself a conservative who thinks he wants to be president who is also a blowhard and a crackpot.
-
So he is no longer considered an Uncle Tom, by you?
-
<<A woman who has been hit on as Bialek was would probably not go along with the "innocent until proven horndog" bit. There are more of these than you suspect.>>
Any attractive woman (and my take on Bialek is that she was more likely than not a real looker back in the day) has been hit on multiple times in her life by horndogs just like Cain and knows the score. Even semi-attractive women get hit on. She knows that two women got about 80K in settlement after the Perv was gone, she knows that four accusers all launched at him from the same company where he was CEO. She knows he lied four times in two days before lawyering up. She knows some quack junk scientist professed to distinguish truth from lies by studying videotaped speech and she knows that 's bullshit.
I'm with XO on how most women will vote on this Perv. Everything BUT the VSA shows him to be guilty, nobody is going to allow some bullshit quackery to throw them off that easily.
Why didn't he get nailed at his other job locations? Was he CEO? Was he just feeling his way into power? Maybe he only started his career as a perv when he felt more secure in his position. Maybe the women he harassed in his other jobs didn't have the courage to come forward. Just look at the hatchet job the Tribune did on Bialek if you want to know why women don't come forward. Half of it was pure bullshit (the anonymous quotes from a "friend,"the ludicrous claims that she was poor, harried by creditors and forced twice into bankruptcy. Welcome to the club, only most people aren't lucky enough to see their fortunes splashed across the front pages of the nation AND the blogosphere.
He's scum, and I think most women are savvy enough from their everyday experiences to realize that.
-
I might vote for a Black man considered an Uncle Tom by at least some Black people. In fact, I am sure that there are many who consider Obama to be an uncle Tom. That is not really a big deal with me.
Let's just let the primaries decide whether he gets to make it to the Bigtime. Maybe we will learn how women voted. I am not a woman, so I can only speculate.
-
How do we know there were 4 accusers?
How do we know that Bialek is not counted twice?
-
So there are three or four.
It really makes no difference, since there will be no trial.
Let the primary voters decide.
This matter is getting boring.
-
My post was directed towards Mikey since he was the one making the claim.
I know what your position is and ultimately i agree that GOP primary voters will make the final decision.
-
XO's quite right, three is more than enough to hang the guy. It's hard enough to get one woman to come forward (witness the hatchet job on Sharon Bialek) two would seal the deal and three is icing on the cake.
We know there were four because Bialek said she was coming forth for the first time, whereas the third accuser came forward at the same time as the two who settled but decided not to make any claim, undoubtedly out of fear of being treated by the press the same way as Bialek. It's very daunting to be subjected to shit-smearing attacks featuring anonymous "friends" and their quotes plus your whole personal financial history laid out for inspection. Disgusting is the word for it, but not surprising coming from that sleazeball perv.
Four witnesses or three, a pack of lies coming out of the Hermster and an 80K settlement, plus Cain's ass out the door in under three months.
Common sense alone tells you his chances of being innocent are down under one per cent, which is where the "Hail Mary" quackery of a gratuitous VSA comes in. At this point, what's the dumb schmuck got to lose?
-
We know there were four because Bialek said she was coming forth for the first time
Bennett had appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell last night and mentioned the phone call from the mysterious “Sharon.” “I had contact with a woman named Sharon in Chicago the last five days. I don’t know if it’s the same Sharon because I never got her last name. The Sharon I had contact with left a voicemail in my office one night indicating she had been harassed by Herman Cain while he was with the National Restaurant Association,” Bennett said. “When I called her back the next day, she said she had decided not to pursue it further. I then called her again yesterday to advise her that she could give her information confidentially if she wanted to. She said she’d think about it and let me know. I have not heard from her since then. It may be the same woman who spoke out today.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sharon-bialek-evades-question-of-whether-shed-previously-called-lawyers-of-other-cain-accusers/ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sharon-bialek-evades-question-of-whether-shed-previously-called-lawyers-of-other-cain-accusers/)
These calls came around the same time the AP reported about the anonymous 3rd person.
-
OK so it's three. Three women in one company with the same story, one who didn't want to come out fully when the other two launched claims, now deciding to come forward when Herm the Perv starts slagging the first two.
I don't think there's going to be a real woman in the country (apart from Coulter-type columnists, politicians and GOP functionaries) who are going to be fooled by Cain - - and that's just plain common sense. They'll look at the women complaining, look at Cain's 4-lies-in-3-days performance, look at the 80K settlement that Cain wasn't even left long enough in office to approve and put all the pieces together. Good luck, horn-dog - - let's see now if you've got that Clinton Teflon or not.
-
And I'll go ahead and flip that for the more rationally minded, that there's probably going to be very few "real" voters (doncha like that...unless you believe Cain's accuser, you're not a "real woman". Gotta love hat group think, that Bt was highlighting earlier) in the country, outside of the lunatic left, who are going to be fooled by Allred and these "accusations". And that's just plain logic
Looking forward to asking the Brea Police officers their position on ascertaining the turth, and reporting back to the saloon
-
<<So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth. Your claim is that it is not. I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is>>
Of course they are going to tell you they try to find the truth. Stupid question. Ask them who goes deeper in looking for the truth, police or the courts? Ask them if they believe that VSA is a tool in the investigation and what that means. Otherwise you're just wasting their time, your time and our time.
-
Why would Democratic women judge men as a group and not Republican women?
Greater intelligence.
-
Cain might lose for reason other than being a horndog. There is rather a lot to dislike about him.
Not for a Republican.
Democrats are just starting to understand that Reagan vibe.
-
What "Reagan vibe"? Cain does not resemble Reagan in any way.
-
.................whose 999 plan would raise my taxes and those of all save the wealthiest.
I am not convinced you are right about this.
How do you do the math?
I wonder if you are estimating your present taxation as high as it is , and whether you are counting all three nines when only two are likely to bite you.
-
Gimme a break! All I ever here in here is "you Liberals" this and "you Liberals" that.
That is a legitamate complaint.
-
So there are three or four.
It really makes no difference, since there will be no trial.
Let the primary voters decide.
This matter is getting boring.
Are you sure that the evidence is less than the quality that could go to trial?
I have been having trouble contending this point with someone elese.
If he really did as described there could indeed be a trial , but there would have to be a bit of evidence that a prosicutor felt useible.
-
<<So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth. Your claim is that it is not. I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is>>
Of course they are going to tell you they try to find the truth.
But YOU said they don't, that's not their function. Sorry, you can't have it both ways
Stupid question.
No, stupid statement..........."But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.". So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating??
So, the appropriate follow-up question to the Police would then be, is it or is it not "necessary for them to find out what the truth is"? We're not looking for "levels". We're looking at who does and who doesn't.
-
What "Reagan vibe"? Cain does not resemble Reagan in any way.
What did I tell you?
I don't think you get the Reagan vibe , and you can't tell even what I am talking about.
Affirmation !
-
<<So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth. Your claim is that it is not. I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is>>
Of course they are going to tell you they try to find the truth.
But YOU said they don't, that's not their function. Sorry, you can't have it both ways
Stupid question.
No, stupid statement..........."But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.". So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating??
So, the appropriate follow-up question to the Police would then be, is it or is it not "necessary for them to find out what the truth is"? We're not looking for "levels". We're looking at who does and who doesn't.
Police training includes training in spotting lies and behaviors that accompany lies, just as reliable as poligraphs are experienced interviewers who have had plenty of time to learn their craft in classroom and in the field.
Don't get preoccupied in asking clever questions, just listen well and interact.
-
.................whose 999 plan would raise my taxes and those of all save the wealthiest.
I am not convinced you are right about this.
How do you do the math?
I wonder if you are estimating your present taxation as high as it is , and whether you are counting all three nines when only two are likely to bite you.
Yea, I remember you asking this question before Plane, and with no response. My wife and I, definately NOT members of the 1%, who are maybe upper middle class, if not middle class, save my wife and I quite a bit in taxes
-
<< If he really did as described there could indeed be a trial , but there would have to be a bit of evidence that a prosicutor felt useible.>>
The settlement is probably useless because it would have a clause denying liability on Cain's part. The records of the corporate investigation would be available,unless the NRA destroyed them in the ordinary course of business, which they probably did. It's basically a he said-she-said case but with three female employees testifying, a pattern of conduct could be established rather easily. You're really looking at a situation where just one of the women has to be more believable than Cain, and I think all three of them are - - if it's a civil suit, the margin of believability can be as low as 51 to 49. I don't think any one of those women is less believable than Cain and the odds of all three being liars, in the absence of any real evidence of conspiracy are slim indeed.
-
It's basically a he said-she-said case but with three female employees testifying, a pattern of conduct could be established rather easily. You're really looking at a situation where just one of the women has to be more believable than Cain, and I think all three of them are - -
Certainly you do.
Even though you only know what one of them is saying.
But Cain is dark skinned ,one of his accusers is blond.
What more need you know?
-
<<No, stupid statement..........."But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.". So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating?? >>
I did not say they don't LOOK for the truth - - those are your words. I said, it is NOT NECESSARY for them to FIND the truth.
Nobody trusts them to find the truth. All they have to do is assemble what looks to them like a good case to take to the DA, who then decides whether to bring it before the court. Naturally they do their best in presenting the case to make it as close to the truth as they can, particularly as regards the identity of the perp, but they are not expected to come up with THE TRUTH. The truth is for the court to determine, not the cops. If they put together the best case they could with what facts and logic they had, and the court throws out the charges, this is not (except in cases of egregious error or malfeasance) the fault of the cops, whose job was not to find the truth but to put together the likeliest case, so the court would have a good shot at finding the truth based on the evidence assembled.
-
<<No, stupid statement..........."But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.". So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating?? >>
I did not say they don't LOOK for the truth - - those are your words. I said, it is NOT NECESSARY for them to FIND the truth.
I know you said that....I put it in quotes. in fact "But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand. It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is"
So, as I said, I'll simply ask the Police officer, "As a function or your duties, in law enforcement, is it necessary for you to find the truth, to the best of your ability? Or is it not necessary?"
Then we'll see if you're right, or the rest of the rational world is
-
<<But Cain is dark skinned ,one of his accusers is blond.
<<What more need you know? >>
ISN'T IT FUNNY? Four or five times in the course of this thread, I put together all the facts that led me to believe the accusers and not Cain: they were, the 80K settlement, that Cain's ass was kicked out the door in less than three months of the first claim being filed and then investigated, that three women all on the same payroll had launched essentially the same kind of complaints against Cain, and that Cain's story before lawyering up had changed four times in three days.
ISN'T IT FUNNY? None of the reasons I gave had anything to do with Cain's skin colour or Sharon's hair colour.
AND ISN'T IT FUNNY that the sole reason plane attributes to me for judging The Perv as I do is something I never said, skin colour. I think if anyone's playing the race card here, it is the conservatives. What a surprise!!! Not. Not at all, really. The reason they hire an Uncle Tom in the first place is to play the race card.
-
<<So, as I said, I'll simply ask the Police officer, "As a function or your duties, in law enforcement, is it necessary for you to find the truth, to the best of your ability? Or is it not necessary?">>
Fair enough. The correct answer is "no, it's not necessary," whether or not the officer realizes it. But a lot of them do understand the point, so we'll just wait and see if your cops are smart enough to get it or not.
-
<<But Cain is dark skinned ,one of his accusers is blond.
<<What more need you know? >>
ISN'T IT FUNNY? Four or five times in the course of this thread, I put together all the facts that led me to believe the accusers and not Cain: they were, the 80K settlement, that Cain's ass was kicked out the door in less than three months of the first claim being filed and then investigated, that three women all on the same payroll had launched essentially the same kind of complaints against Cain, and that Cain's story before lawyering up had changed four times in three days.
ISN'T IT FUNNY? None of the reasons I gave had anything to do with Cain's skin colour or Sharon's hair colour.
AND ISN'T IT FUNNY that the sole reason plane attributes to me for judging The Perv as I do is something I never said, skin colour. I think if anyone's playing the race card here, it is the conservatives. What a surprise!!! Not. Not at all, really. The reason they hire an Uncle Tom in the first place is to play the race card.
Oh hooo..
You still can't see why Clinton is important can you?
Clinton was white and overcame a greater number of more serious charges.
Don't !just don't ,start talking about how willing the women involved were, untill you review the cases , your memory on that point is really poor.
You are dripping hatred for a black man that you would like fine if he was in agreement with you , or if he were white.
Imigine yourself in Scotsborough Alabam in 1935, yes , that is you there in the mob shaking a torch.
-
<<So, as I said, I'll simply ask the Police officer, "As a function or your duties, in law enforcement, is it necessary for you to find the truth, to the best of your ability? Or is it not necessary?">>
Fair enough. The correct answer is "no, it's not necessary," whether or not the officer realizes it. But a lot of them do understand the point, so we'll just wait and see if your cops are smart enough to get it or not.
The correct answer would be THEIR answer.
I'll simply go by what the officers say, vs your spin on them....translated....if they don't agree with you, that doesn't by design label them as "not understanding" ......the point that Cain needs to be labeled an uncle tomming perv, and any facts to the contrary are to be dismissed, or the "cops just don't understand their job duties"
-
<<So, as I said, I'll simply ask the Police officer, "As a function or your duties, in law enforcement, is it necessary for you to find the truth, to the best of your ability? Or is it not necessary?">>
Fair enough. The correct answer is "no, it's not necessary," whether or not the officer realizes it. But a lot of them do understand the point, so we'll just wait and see if your cops are smart enough to get it or not.
The correct answer would be THEIR answer.
I'll simply go by what the officers say, vs your spin on them....translated....if they don't agree with you, that doesn't by design label them as "not understanding" ......the point that Cain needs to be labeled an uncle tomming perv, and any facts to the contrary are to be dismissed, or the "cops just don't understand their job duties"
Oh man.....
Imagine yourself as an officer having to feild such a well rehersed question.
Don't let this spoil the experience , be attentive to what is going on and ask about what is pertanant.
Mostly listen -minority of the time talk.
I would advise you not to whip out a 3x5 card on which a thirty word question glows like a coal.
-
<<Clinton was white and overcame a greater number of more serious charges.>>
Again, your inherent racism blinds you to the many differences between the two men. Because you are a racist, the only distinction you can see between them is colour, but in fact there were many differences, all in Clinton's favour. Clinton, for example, was a Rhodes scholar and a babe magnet.
<< Don't !just don't ,start talking about how willing the women involved were, untill you review the cases , your memory on that point is really poor.>>
Instead of meaningless generalities like yours, I actually gave specifics about why I thought the women were willing and/or fakes. You come out with no facts at all about the women, and expect to win the argument simply based on what you - - without any facts in support - - have asserted. Don't work that way, plane. Never did, never will.
<<You are dripping hatred for a black man that you would like fine if he was in agreement with you , or if he were white.>>
I have no respect whatsoever for an Uncle Tom who sells out his own people for Whitey. That's despicable.
<< Imigine yourself in Scotsborough Alabam in 1935, yes , that is you there in the mob shaking a torch.>>
What an imagination. If I were there at all, it'd be as an assistant to Sam Leibowitz - - who, I can assure you, would have hated the Uncle Toms of his day much as I hate the Uncle Toms of mine. Because I'm an anti-racist, not a racist. Always have been, always will be.
-
<<Clinton was white and overcame a greater number of more serious charges.>>
Again, your inherent racism blinds you to the many differences ..........
You are digging your hole deeper.
Diffrences include.
More accusers for Clinton.
More accusers that were willing to use their real name against Clinton.
More accusers who were witnesses but not victims against Clinton.
More accusations of unwelcome nature of advances against Clinton.
More staff devoted to handling "bimbo eruptions" for Clinton.
(Imagine having "Bimbo wrangler for Bill Clinton" on your resume.)
Timeline crossing decades of consistant bad behavior of the same sort- rather than a short period or a certain circumstance.
Now you can believe Clinton and disbelieve Cain for any reason you wish or imagine.
But before all the world you swallow a camel and strain at a gnat,...
So that you may beleive a White man and disbeleive a Black one.
-
Not a single specific instance in a whole pile of totally unverifiable "more ofs" - - I give you specifics, names of accusers and why they were BS, you OTOH give nothing but non-specific, unverifiable "more of this and more of that." What bullshit. It's not even worth a response.
-
Not a single specific instance in a whole pile of totally unverifiable "more ofs" - - I give you specifics, names of accusers and why they were BS, you OTOH give nothing but non-specific, unverifiable "more of this and more of that." What bullshit. It's not even worth a response.
You are gonna have to rent an oil drilling derrick , you are digging deeper and deeper.
Give me the names of the Women who accuse Herman Cain and why you believe each.
Do you think it will be much effort to match you one for one and more with accusers of Clinton?
The one thing about Herman Cain that matters to you is that he is black, this gives you the hatred needed to believe or ignore anything.
On the Upside, we can use the oil .
-
<<So, as I said, I'll simply ask the Police officer, "As a function or your duties, in law enforcement, is it necessary for you to find the truth, to the best of your ability? Or is it not necessary?">>
Fair enough. The correct answer is "no, it's not necessary," whether or not the officer realizes it. But a lot of them do understand the point, so we'll just wait and see if your cops are smart enough to get it or not.
The correct answer would be THEIR answer.
I'll simply go by what the officers say, vs your spin on them....translated....if they don't agree with you, that doesn't by design label them as "not understanding" ......the point that Cain needs to be labeled an uncle tomming perv, and any facts to the contrary are to be dismissed, or the "cops just don't understand their job duties" [/size]
Oh man.....
Imagine yourself as an officer having to feild such a well rehersed question.
Don't let this spoil the experience , be attentive to what is going on and ask about what is pertanant.
Mostly listen -minority of the time talk.
I would advise you not to whip out a 3x5 card on which a thirty word question glows like a coal.
I shall take your recommendations under serious advisement, Plane. Thanks 8)
-
I shall take your recommendations under serious advisement, Plane.
Greater adulation than this is very rare
Thank You
-
Wow. you really do like to pitch 'em slow and easy and right over the centre of the plate, don't you?
<<Give me the names of the Women who accuse Herman Cain and why you believe each.>>
1. Kraushaar - reasons to believe: $45K settlement, corporate investigation, Cain's ass out the door before the settlement was even signed, Cain lying about her settlement three or four times in two days before lawyering up. Also, she's a reasonably attractive babe, and so could expect to receive her fair share of harassment, from Cain and/or others.
2. No-name - reasons to believe, $35K settlement, corporate investigation, Cain's ass out the door before the settlement was even signed, Cain lying about her settlement three or four times in two days before lawyering up.
3. Sharon Bialek - reasons to believe - she's coming forward when it's too late to ask for money; on same payroll as other two, no reason to lie and a lot to lose by coming forward, as witness, as we've seen from the hatchet job done on her in the Chicago Tribune within a day of her coming forward in public. The speed of the hatchet job into print is also suspicious, indicating that Cain's people knew she was coming up, despite Cain's public lies that he did not know who she was. Also, although she's not exactly a head-turner today, my babe-sense tells me that she probably was, back in the day, and so, like Kraushaar, would have been expected to have received more than her fair share of harassment from Cain and others at that time.
<< Do you think it will be much effort to match you one for one and more with accusers of Clinton?>>
I have no idea. Bring 'em on.
<< The one thing about Herman Cain that matters to you is that he is black, this gives you the hatred needed to believe or ignore anything.>>
Unfortunately, as I've stated, you are projecting the racist prism through which you see the world by force of habit, onto me, who has never held a single racist view. Thus you imagine that the only differences I see between Clinton and The Perv is skin colour, whereas in fact (as I have already stated, and as you unaccountably persist in ignoring) there are a great many differences between the two men, all in Clinton's favour. If ANYONE is ignoring significant evidence, it is you, in your racist need to keep one of the few Uncle Toms you have, who is ignoring all common sense to believe Cain, pinning your hopes on junk science as if your ship has already gone down and that is the one floating timber that might save you.
-
Unfortunately, as I've stated, you are projecting the racist prism through which you see the world by force of habit, onto me, who has never held a single racist view.
Outside of the repetative perseverative use of derrogatore racist rhetoric, yea, no racist views at all ::) It's amazing how the left will see "cloaked racism" in conservatives, and the Tea Party. Can't point to anything specific, but its supposedly hidden behind terms, phrases, and gestures. Yet the lunatic left flaunts it for all to see, then claims "Me?, racist?, not me"
-
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php)
Is this a good clue?
The screen I get is "Forbidden " "You are not allowed access to http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php) on this server"
-
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php)
Is this a good clue?
The screen I get is "Forbidden " "You are not allowed access to http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php) on this server"
link works for me and i haven't changed anything.
-
I will see your pair of named accusers one unnamed high, and raise you seventeen named and three unnamed accusers.
In quality and quantity Clinton is three of Cain in accusation alone.
In addition Clinton has admitted to some of the misdeeds he was accused of so there is no doubt of these .
But you know him to be a trustworthy white guy , so this is a list of liars.
The most pertanant comment you have made so far was when you said " I have no idea. Bring 'em on.
"
Yes you had no real idea , but Clinton is a liberal White Guy, your kinda guy, you felt safe in the assumption, and if that doesn't count as prejudice I want to see how.
In six thousand words or less.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/11/clintons-list-of-ignored-accusers.html (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/11/clintons-list-of-ignored-accusers.html)
The list of women that stepped forward and publicly complained about the former President are:
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
-
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php)
Is this a good clue?
The screen I get is "Forbidden " "You are not allowed access to http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php) on this server"
link works for me and i haven't changed anything.
Hmmm logjam seems broken.
-
I will see your pair of named accusers one unnamed high, and raise you seventeen named and three unnamed accusers.
In quality and quantity Clinton is three of Cain in accusation alone.
In addition Clinton has admitted to some of the misdeeds he was accused of so there is no doubt of these .
The list of women that stepped forward and publicly complained about the former President are:
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
WOW
-
Don't be impressed with me, Google simply handed me what I asked for.
If this makes no impression I don't think I will travel further down this road.
Clinton has been accused of non sexual improprietys also , but this is getting boring.
Have you ever heard of Sysypus?
-
That would be Sisyphus, the guy who was cursed by the gods to roll a rock up a mountain only to have it roll back down again.
Clinton did whatever he did, and will be punished no more for it. Voters will decide what to do with Cain, maybe his alleged nasty behavior will be a factor. There is really nothing more to say about this, so far as I can see.
-
Tis true, that the voters will decide for themselves as to the veracity of these accusations, and if perceived valid, how might that influence their support for Cain or not. But at least we can dispense with how accusations alone, (Hearing this Miss Allred??) should be what supposedly disqualifies a candidate from even being considered, when Clinton was President for his full 2 terms.
And before Xo jumps on with how its "unlikely Gloria 'heard' anything typed by sirs on a keyboard", it was a rhetorical question
-
What is the point of asking this rhetorical question, since you KNOW the answer?
Clinton finished two terms far more successfully than his predecessor and both of his successors.
Life is so unfair to you, sirs, I don't see how you manage to keep going.
-
What is the point of asking this rhetorical question, since you KNOW the answer?
Because its for those who may not have known Miss Allred's comments, when she brought forth Cain's accuser
Clinton finished two terms far more successfully than his predecessor and both of his successors.
Good thing we had a GOP congress to keep in grounded, and sounds like Cain has a far better opportunity then to impress, since he had far less accusations
Life is so unfair to you, sirs, I don't see how you manage to keep going.
Easy, I'm a glass-half-full fella. You ever going to respond to Plane's question, regarding how you're going to have to pay more taxes than "the rich", under Cain's 999 plan??
-
I calculated what my taxes would be and in the unlikely event that Cain got the nomination, and was elected AND got Congress to pass his 999 plan, I would pay more.
I have no obligation to share figures with Plane. you or anyone.
-
So, its just your all-too-often flagrantly wrong say so. Well, why didn't you just say so?
-
Wow, that is some list.
I gotta say, having looked again in more detail into Juanita Broaddrick's accusations, seen a picture of her at that time and seen credible explanations for the 20-year delay, for the false affidavit and for the failure to produce further sworn testimony, I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I think this is probably a credible accusation of rape. At least, one that deserved serious prosecutorial attention, which it's now probably too late for.
Similarly the Eileen Wellstone accusations and the surrounding circumstances - - why Bill left Oxford after the accusation and a police investigation without completing his studies. I was disappointed in not being able to find a timeline showing dates of commencement of studies, alleged offence, accusation, and leaving Oxford, but it's certainly a possibility.
Elizabeth Gracen - - sorry guys, this one appears to have been purely consensual, at least according to Wikipedia. This babe was some looker! All I can say is Lucky Bill! Consensual sex with a babe like this one beats consensual sex with Hillary hands down!!!
I'm not going through the rest of them because what's the point? When you find one pubic hair in your spaghetti, you don't keep eating to see if there's more. Broaddrick was probably a rape, ditto for Wellstone and the 800K settlement with Jones indicates some kind of wrongdoing that could surface at a trial. Bill had backers who'd pay the freight all the way to the end of the line, and a huge amount of rep at stake, so obviously he and his handlers had a deathly fear of further proceedings in court.
So Bill's a slimeball. I don't feel too bad about that, I hated his fucking guts ever since he dumped Lani Guinier and even more after his war on Serbia. He's the scum of the earth for reasons that have nothing to do with his treatment of women, which is just the icing on the cake for me. His war on Serbia cost thousands of lives, which nobody gives a shit about anyway. It was kind of a shock, nevertheless, to realize that Broaddrick had probably been telling the truth after all.
Now maybe you can answer this for me: How do the numerous crimes of Bill Clinton have anything at all to do with the mountain of fact supporting Cain's sexual harassment of female employees and his lies in denying them? Want to jump back into the present for a change?
-
Clinton has zilch to do with this.
-
Clinton has zilch to do with this.
You are correct. It is about double standards.
-
And you are correct
-
Well, now it's a single standard. They're both a them slime-balls, Bubba and The Perv. One standard, one application, one result.
-
One result?....2 terms as President of the United States? Alrighty then
-
Bill Clinton has carryed enough water for me this week, I think I shall let him rest.
It is enough that a small window has been opened , so that MT can see why I detect racism in him.
I don't expect him to accept my point of view , would that be fair for me to expect? I don't accept his pov a lot.