Cain passes lie detector test

[sirs]

<<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. 

[R.R.]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[R.R.]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[R.R.]

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.

[R.R.]

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

[sirs]

<<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

[Xavier_Onassis]

What facts? Was Cain polygraphed in New Mexico?

Your bogus voice-stress goober technology is not accepted by any court, anywhere.

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[R.R.]

In what court did Bialek submit her fraudulent accusations?

[BT]

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.