RUMORS OF BREAKING NEWS #9

[nancy_drew]

Leslie, it's not only that I'm upset with. It's all that implied that we only care about the money.

You gotta think of this forum as a crowded cafe with all kind of people discussing topics....and, every once in awhile some riff raff comes in off the street and makes it very uncomfortable.

Dash had to deal with it too.

Personally, I think the authorities in Aruba are doing more than most think.  The USA isn't the only country with smarts and gum shoe techniques.  Since Aruba doesn't have public disclosure laws as we do...and, they're not used to talking to the media....it pisses Americans off.

I'll hold off criticism of LE in Aruba until we know more.

[Leslie Sprenger]

Arubagirl - do you think that they might try 3 polygraph tests in this particular case?  Would it hurt ?

[GreatOwl]

Aruban girl It is about the money or lack of money if this case is not resolved.  This case started with a lie and the arrest of two innocent black men because it easy to balme the Black.  Aruba is racist and I hope that someone looks into the racism of aruba.  Also, the american people could tell this was a lie and saw through it.  So now we arrest the white boys and the indians.  this case is a whitwash and the aruban can not tell the truth.  I have never met an aruban that would not tell a lie for a dollar (american dollar that is)

anbennett to you:
I have been monitoring this site since the search began.  I have seen some terrible attacks on various people and groups, but this is one of the worst I have seen.  I don't post often.  I needed to respond.  I don't care what the circumstances are.  This post was completely uncalled for.  It serves no purpose except to upset people.  

As Thumper once said.  "If you can't say something nice then don't say nothing at all."

[absolut]

Dan Riehl from Rhielworldview (blog) will be on Fox in the 9pm hour.

[LilOrphan]

Guys, I'm going to be gone for a while. I want to look at some other sites and listen to some stuff.

It's not because I'm mad, okay?

Well, you'd have every right to be mad, if you were. And that seems to be the goal of some of these troll types.  You've been doing a wonderful service for Natalee and for everyone here, all of you in Aruba who post here.  Without your hard work and translations, we'd have really nothing to work with.  Thanks for everything you've done.

[Another K in Texas]

Leslie, it seems that they are ILLEGAL in aruba, so if that is the case, no they won't give them just this one time.

[sunmoonstars]

Mickey's attorney is being interviewed on Fox right now. He is also telling what one of the suspects told him.

[friend of monkeys]

Leslie, it seems that they are ILLEGAL in aruba, so if that is the case, no they won't give them just this one time.

micey on fox now

[littletxlady]

They said the man that was decapitateds name on FOX but I didn't catch it. Did any one ?

[SPSII]

Guys, I'm going to be gone for a while. I want to look at some other sites and listen to some stuff.

It's not because I'm mad, okay?

Well, you'd have every right to be mad, if you were. And that seems to be the goal of some of these troll types.  You've been doing a wonderful service for Natalee and for everyone here, all of you in Aruba who post here.  Without your hard work and translations, we'd have really nothing to work with.  Thanks for everything you've done.

We've got your back here. We need a mod on this forum.

[RB]

Leslie, we have explained the lie detector test issue about 20,000 times now.

We DO NOT USE IT. NOR DO MANY U.S. STATES.

In essence, it's a matter of perception.  All law enforcement officers recognize it as a tool, and will ask for someone to take one (they can refuse), but it's a question of whether the state law allows it as evidence under certain clearly defined criteria.  Most states do, but it must be performed in a certain manner, under guidelines, and can be difficult for prosecutors in those states with restrictive evidence laws to have it admitted if every i isn't dotted and t crossed.

[friend of monkeys]

he was found a short distance from his car NEXT to a cementary

was it near the pet/dog cemetary?

no a human cementary in sabana basora ( thats between sta cruz and savaneta)

thx

[RB]

They said the man that was decapitateds name on FOX but I didn't catch it. Did any one ?

Rene somebody or another - I didn't catch the last name when I saw it.

[Icegirl]

Guys, I'm going to be gone for a while. I want to look at some other sites and listen to some stuff.

It's not because I'm mad, okay?

Goodnight aruba girl just want you to know we appreciate you.

[nancy_drew]

Aruban girl It is about the money or lack of money if this case is not resolved.  This case started with a lie and the arrest of two innocent black men because it easy to balme the Black.  Aruba is racist and I hope that someone looks into the racism of aruba.  Also, the american people could tell this was a lie and saw through it.  So now we arrest the white boys and the indians.  this case is a whitwash and the aruban can not tell the truth.  I have never met an aruban that would not tell a lie for a dollar (american dollar that is)

anbennett to you:
I have been monitoring this site since the search began.  I have seen some terrible attacks on various people and groups, but this is one of the worst I have seen.  I don't post often.  I needed to respond.  I don't care what the circumstances are.  This post was completely uncalled for.  It serves no purpose except to upset people.  

As Thumper once said.  "If you can't say something nice then don't say nothing at all."

Most respected Internet forums have very specific rules regarding  membership and posting.  I know Tom and Red have had to deal with this happening so fast they've had no time. But, they should really consider forum rules.  Heated debate and disagreement is fine...but, this post crosses the line.

[Catriana]

Unfortunately, polygraph tests are not as reliable as the general public has been led to believe.

see the article below.  Or do an internet search for "polygraph".

 URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7992482/page/2/

 MSNBC.com
Do lie detectors lie?
Detecting the truth is an art, not a science

COMMENTARY
By Clint Van Zandt
MSNBC analyst & former FBI profiler
Updated: 11:01 a.m. ET June 13, 2005


In the movie “Meet the Parents,” prospective groom Ben Stiller is first interrogated and then polygraphed by his soon to be father-in-law and former CIA spy catcher, Robert De Niro. He then provides the details of Stiller’s life to the prospective bride, in this case De Niro’s daughter.  De Niro’s character was said to be a human lie detector, although he used a conventional (and now outdated) analog polygraph instrument.

Early attempts at figuring out the truth
Long before modern day polygraphs existed, the ancients still had to deal with lies and liars, and their courts had to discern between truthfulness and falsehoods. Trial by ordeal became the order of the day and the “scientific” method of determining truth.  

There were really three original ways of playing “Truth or Consequence”:

Trial by fire— this requires the person being tested to walk barefoot over red hot iron. If they survived that and if their wounds healed after three days, they were considered innocent.  
Trial by ordeal— the person being tested to plunge his or her arm into boiling water. If they had no blisters, they were assumed to be innocent. A variant on the water theme has the subject of the trial thrown into a river. If he sank he was considered innocent.  (Question: What if he sank and wasn’t recovered— innocent or guilty?)  
Last is a somewhat more gentle method to determine truth from fiction: eating food containing a feather. If he choked, you were assumed guilty. This was long before the Heimlich maneuver, therefore if you choked, you might also be dead!

The earliest recorded attempt to invent a machine that separated truth from fiction was in 1895, but it was not until 1915 that a device was developed that established the correlation of blood pressure and respiratory changes with lying.

In 1921, an instrument capable of continuously recording blood pressure, respiration, and pulse rate was devised, followed by the first polygraph in 1926. Later versions have followed, but these machines still rely on the premise that there is a correlation between truth, lies, and body response.

How it works

A polygraph does not really separate truth from lies; or the honest from the liar. It simply provides information concerning any change in physiological response in areas such as respiration, heartbeat and blood pressure, this while the person being tested undergoes questioning.  

As a retired FBI agent, I don’t want to take anything away from my former law enforcement colleagues who practice the art (vs. science) of detecting truth, but I have been less than confident in the statistical success rate of the polygraph, having seen killers “pass” the test, and honest people “fail.”

You see, the prevailing theory behind the polygraph is that when someone tells a lie, they become nervous about their lies and their nervousness causes changes that can be noted in their breathing, their heartbeat, their perspiration and their blood pressure.  An initial baseline is established by asking questions of the person being tested whose correct answers are known to the polygraph operator (or forensic psychophysiologist).  Deviation from the known baseline for truthful answers is then taken as an indication of deception.

But what about psychopaths, sociopaths or just damn good liars?  If the old adage is correct, i.e., “If you believe it yourself it then passes as truth,” or if you have learned to control of your bodily reactions, why can’t you “pass” a lie detector test even if you are “lying?”

And what about the opposite: What if you are completely innocent but nervous, angry, sad, embarrassed or just fearful of a test whose results may affect your entire life?  Or what if you have a cold, a muscular problem, a headache, or if you’re simply constipated?  Can these purely non-voluntary bodily symptoms or conditions affect the physiological changes that are being measured against “the truth baseline?”  And what if you are nervous?  Is the nervousness due to the fact that you know you’ve done something wrong and may get found out by the polygraph, or are you simply nervous for any number of other reasons— all totally unrelated to your complicity in some suggested criminal act?

The ACLU, an organization with which I do not normally side, supported the passage of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act that outlawed the use of the polygraph “for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.”  

Does the polygraph, in the hands of a trained, competent individual really allow the operator to detect deception on the part of the person being tested?  Well, yes and no. Try betting your life or your career on that one!      


The concept scares people into the truth

Many agencies rely on the esoteric technology factor in their use of the polygraph. By this, the polygraph machine looks high tech, the person administering the test appears professional, well-dressed and highly-trained, and you are told before your test that you may as well tell the truth because the operator will know if you don’t.  If you believe that in the war between man and machine that the machines will always win, then you may as well confess, or tell what you’re hiding. You’ve already lost, the machine is omnipotent and you’re not.  Case closed, “book’em Danno.”  After all, the so-called reasoning goes, “The innocent have nothing to hide, so take the test if you’re innocent.”  Go ahead; “take the plunge” so to speak.

If the test says you’re deceptive and you aren’t—or even if you are being deceptive— it’s still your word against the machine, and the operator’s interpretation of the data gathered by the machine.  

But here is where the real value of the polygraph comes in.  Not the bells, whistles, lights, gauges, and straps on your body, but the interview skills of the polygraph operator. If he or she has been able to convince you of the state of the art technology that is wrapped up in their polygraph machine, and if their interviewing techniques both put you at ease and/or otherwise facilitate your “truthful” response (even if such is to your detriment), then the operator and his machine have ultimately gotten to the truth.  They’ve made a believer out of you and you’ve rolled over and told them what they want to know.  

Then the end must justify the means, right?

Guilty until proven innocent?

About six years ago, various agencies in the Federal Government, including the Department of Energy (DOE), became concerned about classified information that was walking Aldrich Ames-style out of the secret safes in the U.S. and into the hands of friendly or less than friendly foreign governments.  The DOE wanted to test 10,000 to 20,000 of its employees and contractors with clearances to determine who was providing classified information to those who shouldn’t have it.  Congress approved the money to conduct these tests, but added a caveat; have the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) test polygraphs to see if they really work.  Three years later the NAS provided its report, suggesting in part that as currently used, the polygraph had serious limitations including the innocent being falsely judged to be deceptive and the guilty escaping undetected (like the CIA’s Ames and his associates).

Law enforcement and the media many times appear to suggest that we are guilty until proven innocent, and that innocence can ultimately be determined by today’s trial by ordeal— the modern polygraph. Well, Pinocchio’s nose didn’t really grow when he lied, and liars don’t always fail polygraph examinations, but the innocent can become embroiled in the controversy surrounding the use of lie detectors. They can have their veracity forever questioned because of some emotional response that a machine and its human handler finds to be off the base line.

Former President Richard Nixon once said, “I don’t know anything about lie detectors other than they scare the hell out of people.” History has shown that Mr. Nixon had legitimate reasons to be scared of polygraphs, and such may be the only true value in administering a polygraph examination.

If you apply for certain government jobs, if you are a suspect in a crime, or if, God forbid, your child or another family member is kidnapped, etc., you will probably be asked to take a polygraph test. Should this time come, be prepared to stand your ground, state your case, and decide wisely if such a “test” is in your best interest. Your reputation, your livelihood and your very future may depend on your response.

Be safe!

Email Clint at CVZ@msnbc.com

Clint Van Zandt is an MSNBC analyst. He is the founder and president of Van Zandt Associates Inc. Van Zandt and his associates also developed LiveSecure.org, a Website dedicated "to develop, evaluate, and disseminate information to help prepare and inform individuals concerning personal and family security issues." During his 25-year career in the FBI, Van Zandt was a supervisor in the FBI's internationally renowned Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. He was also the FBI's Chief Hostage Negotiator and was the leader of the analytical team tasked with identifying the "Unabomber."

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7992482/page/2/

[boxopen]

... do you think that they might try 3 polygraph tests in this particular case?  Would it hurt ?

Leslie, the fact is... hurt of "un"hurt the real point IS: In this kind of Law system the use of a polygraph beside illegal almost automaticly desmiss the case before court independently of the polygraph result!

[RB]

Well, you'd have every right to be mad, if you were. And that seems to be the goal of some of these troll types.  You've been doing a wonderful service for Natalee and for everyone here, all of you in Aruba who post here.  Without your hard work and translations, we'd have really nothing to work with.  Thanks for everything you've done

We've got your back here. We need a mod on this forum.

Who trolled who?  Is this because of the Fox News report about the guy they found dead today?

[NM]

Am in Aruba,
Jennifer Wilbanks was thought to be kidnapped b/c she called her boyfriend and told him that she was kidnapped by a white woman and a hispanci male and that they raped her and were holding her. She also told this to police. It turned out she was too stress out from life, wedding plans, etc and the kidnapping, etc was all untrue.

[Whitney]

AmericanAruba, here's the least I can do for you  you asked for this...here it is:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Jennifer+Wilbanks

This is the list of stories that turned out to be a major embarrassment to Georgia, FOX News, MSNBC, CNN...for one week America was looking for this woman who claimed she was kidnapped and raped.  Turned out she just ran away...

One story you might not find is that "some of her friends" said that since her fiance was a new born Christian and had "reclaimed his virginity," he wouldn't have sex with her and she was climbing the walls.  

It's one of the sadder moments...oh...and she's purportedly getting $1/2 million to tell her story in a book/movie deal.

Sorry, folks...it's for AmericanAruba and international relations.