[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry
>
>Thank you for the site. The info you included in your post was gathered
>from a specific groups of scientists it appears and is an amicus brief
>and is only to present legal arguments or facts on behalf of someone.
This is surely a misstatement of most any amicus curiae brief. Certainly
the argument of any brief before the Supreme Court argues for one side of a
particular case but the brief clearly argues for the use of polygraphs in
trials. Polygraphs are now allowed in New Mexico and have been allowed in
military courts for a long time.
>IOW, it is my belief it is similar to an expert witness.
An expert witness may be simply a paid liar or a person of some repute
speaking to the issue. If you choose to deny the words of any expert
witness because they are prejudiced, you deem trials even a greater farce
than I have charged.
Would you think a fingerprint expert brought forth by the government to
explain the identification of a suspect to be just another liar who should
be ignored?
>And you, yourself, state that it is not the most effective way of learning the
>truth.
It is by far the most effective way to tell if someone is telling the truth
as they know it. If physical evidence is available to refute the test, I
wouldn't have the slightest hesitation deciding in favor of the physical
evidence.
>So why would Paula taking a lie detector test prove anything?
It is superb evidence she believes what she is saying if the polygrapher was
competent in administering the test.
>Also all the information that I have summarized below counters the
>excerpts from the amicus brief.
>Here is the information I have from psychology sources: Bacon's 1998
>Psychology textbook, Meyer's 1998 Psychology textbook, Kassim 1998
>Psychology textbook, Hockenbury & Hockenbuy 1997 Psychology textbook and
>Meyer"s (frorensic psychologist) book on abnormal behavior and the cj
>system.
>1. The central assumption underlying the polygraph test is that lying
>results in more emotional arousal than telling the truth. Lying then is
>stressful and should cause the same physiological responses that stress
>does. Problem number 1--*most*, not all people, experience these
>physiological responses when lying. Some people are able to lie without
>experiencing arousal or anxiety because of the personality
>characteristics, chemical use, or physical attributes. One of the
>characteristics of an antisocial is that they are amoral--to feel guilt,
>stress, anxiety about lying you must have some degree of morality I
>would think.
There is no doubt there are expert liars who can be expected to have great
success with lie detectors. The idea that a psychopath (the currently
fashionable term is sociopath which has already been overtaken by borderline
personality) can easily pass a test is simply untested gossip. OJ Simpson
failed miserably. Ted Bundy, one of the most convincing liars who ever
lived, failed. There are a host of examples.
>Other characteristics is that of persistent lying,
>disregard for the truth, and manipulation (con-artist). Evidence shows
>that accomplished con artists can tell huge lies with little little or
>no emotional respons.
>
>2. The lie detector does not detect lies--only emotional arousal.
>Similar responses occur with feelings of irritation, guilt, anxiety,
>etc. Thus, a person's perceptions can affect the results of the test.
>If a dishonest person is skeptical but an honest persons believes the
>detector works, the person telling the truth may actually show a larger
>reaction on the machine than a person who is lying. And, because the
>machine cannot detect which emotion is being recorded, at a conservative
>estimate the test errs about 1/3 of the time,
Note there is no documentation of this. Such a statement is worthless
without experimental documentation properly evaluated to make any such
statement. It is false on its face since it would not then be even a
reasonably effective investigative tool. Voice Stress Analyzers have
approximately this statistical reliability and are very poorly regarded.
They are used by police but the results are rightly not trusted.
>with innocent people being
>more likely to fail the test than a lying person. Others estimate the
>error for innocent people at 45 percent.
ROTFL!
>Also there are simple
>countermeasures that can be used even with the refined polygraph tests
>now given. Studies show that you can beat the test simply by
>distracting yourself or by tensing your muscles, biting your tongue, or
>squeezing your toes while answering the control questions which will
>mask the stress aroused by lying to the relevant questions.
>
>Finally, it has been concluded after review of all the polygraph
>research for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that it
>is possible to make accurate and discriminating judgments of truth and
>deception only IF the subject is naive and the examiner well-trained.
Ted Bundy, one time thought to be a likely future candidate for governor and
a fine member of the Washington State Crime Commission, does not seem to be
one who could fail a test if such were true, now does it?
>This leaves me with the conclusion that Paula Jones polygraph test tells
>me nothing in regard to her truthfulness or not. In fact, if I wanted
>to be cyncial I would point out that if she really had suffered such
>emotional trauma, then she should have been aroused emotionally just
>having to answer the relevant questions and. thus, should have failed
>the test. They have found some evidence for this when questioning rape
>victims using the polygraph test.
>
>jackief
Let's understand, Jackie, that if you were a suspect accused of murder,
slapped into a chair and the questioning went something like:
"How are you?"
"You killed the guy, didn't you?"
the test might not be efficacious. There are ways of doing things.
If Jones was traumatized that should show up and the test would be
inconclusive. There are means of asking questions and ways of not asking
questions. Surprise and shock are not ways to use a polygraph.
Jones' test is just another in a long string of proof that she was
propositioned. It beats the hell out of Clinton's responses:
a. He can't remember.
b. He can remember he didn't do it.
c. Jones is trailer park trash and he is the President.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
