Cain passes lie detector test

[Michael Tee]

<<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)

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[R.R.]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[R.R.]

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.

[Plane]

........................or close off dead-ends before too much time is wasted on them.

  Let us hope so.

[sirs]

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

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.