Cain passes lie detector test

[Michael Tee]

<< 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.

[Plane]

   Obviously not so, none of these charges have been prosicuted in court at all.

[sirs]

<<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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.



   

[sirs]

<<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

[Plane]

"..........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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . 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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[BT]

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.