March 19, 2019, 01:09:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lisa Irwin #4 10/21/11 - 10/27/11  (Read 268891 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stayhomemommy
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2815



« Reply #780 on: October 26, 2011, 06:51:16 PM »

I'm not hopeful regarding the interview with the boys. They have probably been coached. Plus, don't they also have the right to an attorney? If so, that means they will have one present to basically say what they can or cannot answer. I don't know. This whole thing is just getting beyond ridiculous. Another circus, and another little child missing. Ack.
Logged
labubske
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1934



« Reply #781 on: October 26, 2011, 06:55:00 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html
snipped;

But the attorney representing Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, said the couple is not opposed to separate interviews, but do not want what police requested -- an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present.

"Being questioned separately is not the issue," said attorney Cyndy Short. She said the couple has been cooperative and has previously been interviewed separately as well as together. They don't mind being interviewed separately as long as the detectives are fair, open-minded and non-accusatory, she said.



Is there something wrong with detectives being fair, open-minded and non-accusatory?  Not in my opinion.

That is absolutely fair....that is how I have seen detectives work anyway...unless they have reason to not be.
Logged

"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." Sir Josiah Stamp

“I don't have anything to gain. It's not going to save my daughter's life. But it could save your daughter's life.”  ~Mark Lunsford
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #782 on: October 26, 2011, 06:56:53 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-say-theyll-question-2-older-brothers-of-missing-kansas-city-baby-again/2011/10/26/gIQAvV3jJM_story.html
Police say they’ll interview 2 older brothers of missing Kansas City baby again
By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, October 26, 5:20 PM

 ::snipping2::
Cynthia Short, the family’s attorney, said Wednesday that police recently asked to interview the boys a second time and the parents “have had to weigh the best interest of their small children against the desire of the law enforcement to bring their boys in for a second interview.”

The couple chose to allow the second interviews after they were assured they “would be done in a safe place and would be done by a specially trained social worker,” Short said. She said they “should be done by the end of the week.”

Interviewing children a second time in an ongoing investigation would not be unusual, though in an “ideal circumstance one interview should be enough,” said Victor Vieth, director of the National Child Protection Training Center at Winona State University in Minnesota, which trains forensic specialists to interview children.

“You have to be well-trained, you have to be cautious. You should be recording the interview so you can show conclusively that everything was done appropriately,” Vieth said. “The ultimate check though on the veracity of the children’s statement ... is can you take their statement and go out and corroborate it.”

Linda Cordisco Steele, a child forensic interview specialist with the National Children’s Advocacy Center in Huntsville, Ala., said while she was a “little bit surprised” that police had not talked to the boys since Oct. 4, there are no strict guidelines about how much time should elapse between such interviews.

“The thinking is the closer to the event and the closer together the interviews the more likely the information is not going to be lost or forgotten or contaminated,” she said.


More interviews could be warranted if the investigation is active “and things come up,” she said.
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #783 on: October 26, 2011, 07:05:18 PM »

Lisa Irwin: Prime News 10/26/11 Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/u/1/jfg9X3qUyFo

Lisa Irwin: Prime News 102611 Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/u/0/3UciEFPlTOE
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #784 on: October 26, 2011, 07:15:35 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html
That's all I can say without being banned.
Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
higherhopes
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6581



« Reply #785 on: October 26, 2011, 07:25:33 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html
That's all I can say without being banned.
hmmm......uhh yea....guess I would be right behind you on the banned list if I said what I really want to...lol
Logged

I don't know, I was at work....I don't know, I was sleeping........Where is Haleigh???????
Babybear
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266



« Reply #786 on: October 26, 2011, 07:35:12 PM »

This is a lecture by a defense attorney.  There is a rebuttal by a police officer. 
Logged

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.
Right is right, even if nobody does it. ~ Unknown
Babybear
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266



« Reply #787 on: October 26, 2011, 07:37:00 PM »

This is a lecture by a defense attorney.  There is a rebuttal by a police officer. 
Sorry, didn't work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcTSvr66Zj4&NR=1
Logged

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.
Right is right, even if nobody does it. ~ Unknown
Babybear
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266



« Reply #788 on: October 26, 2011, 07:41:01 PM »

This is a lecture by a defense attorney.  There is a rebuttal by a police officer. 
Sorry, didn't work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcTSvr66Zj4&NR=1

I should have said that the subject is why you should never talk to police about a crime, innocent or guilty.
Logged

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.
Right is right, even if nobody does it. ~ Unknown
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #789 on: October 26, 2011, 07:44:10 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html
That's all I can say without being banned.
hmmm......uhh yea....guess I would be right behind you on the banned list if I said what I really want to...lol


I just read where JI came home from the 2nd job to eat....no link, my dad told me he heard it on HLN but I did find this..https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1169347021&ref=ts#!/groups/247978151920153/252359684815333/?notif_t=group_activity  There is a discussion of this, now if it was in between jobs, no issue BUT if he came home and ate after going to his 2nd job, well I have a major issue with that as well as 80% of the way this couple has behaved, the bulk of their concern is for me me me, not baby Lisa.....just like the Cummings/Croslin clan - of course JMO
Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
Babybear
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266



« Reply #790 on: October 26, 2011, 07:46:11 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html

Oh, come on wth are they hiding.........
This indeed is turning into another @$#%% case. 
Can't bring myself to say the name. Monkey Devil!

Can they really refuse to talk to police?  If so, there is something really wrong with the system (like we didn't know that already).

They have to be charged with something before police can force them to be interviewed.

Sorry, under no circumstances can LE force you to be interviewed.  It is one of the most cherished of Constitutional rights.  Remember the Miranda warning?  "You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to have an attorney with you, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed, etc."   In fact, they can't even take you into custody unless they are arresting you and they must tell you what they are arresting you for.  If you agree to be interviewed, you can say at any time that you want your attorney and they must immediately stop.  Surely no one thinks this is a flaw in our justice system.

I thank God that I live in a country where being forced to give evidence against myself is illegal.  In the old days they used to beat you with a rubber hose to make you talk.  Not any more.

We all know that your Miranda rights have to be read to you.  You can also refuse to answer during the interview.  However, if you are charged with a crime the police most certainly do have the right to interview you.


You might want to read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

If you refuse to speak it wouldn't be much of an interview.  And you do have that right.

Oops...I started a bit of a fuss over that.  I understand the Miranda rights and all and totally agree with that...I guess that I was looking at it more of they called the police and initiated all of this and now they aren't talking.  No need to get bent out of shape I certainly believe in our Constitutional rights...but to me there is something wrong when you call the police to help find your missing child and then stop talking to those very people that are trying to help you.  And no I do not believe that they are being mean to them or focusing only on them.  It really was a simple question that was taken different than I intented.

I think that they came to the conclusion that the police were trying to frame them.  IMO if that is the case, or even if I suspected it to be true, I wouldn't be being "Interviewed" either.
Logged

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.
Right is right, even if nobody does it. ~ Unknown
labubske
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1934



« Reply #791 on: October 26, 2011, 07:51:38 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html

Oh, come on wth are they hiding.........
This indeed is turning into another @$#%% case. 
Can't bring myself to say the name. Monkey Devil!

Can they really refuse to talk to police?  If so, there is something really wrong with the system (like we didn't know that already).

They have to be charged with something before police can force them to be interviewed.

Sorry, under no circumstances can LE force you to be interviewed.  It is one of the most cherished of Constitutional rights.  Remember the Miranda warning?  "You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to have an attorney with you, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed, etc."   In fact, they can't even take you into custody unless they are arresting you and they must tell you what they are arresting you for.  If you agree to be interviewed, you can say at any time that you want your attorney and they must immediately stop.  Surely no one thinks this is a flaw in our justice system.

I thank God that I live in a country where being forced to give evidence against myself is illegal.  In the old days they used to beat you with a rubber hose to make you talk.  Not any more.

We all know that your Miranda rights have to be read to you.  You can also refuse to answer during the interview.  However, if you are charged with a crime the police most certainly do have the right to interview you.


You might want to read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

If you refuse to speak it wouldn't be much of an interview.  And you do have that right.

Oops...I started a bit of a fuss over that.  I understand the Miranda rights and all and totally agree with that...I guess that I was looking at it more of they called the police and initiated all of this and now they aren't talking.  No need to get bent out of shape I certainly believe in our Constitutional rights...but to me there is something wrong when you call the police to help find your missing child and then stop talking to those very people that are trying to help you.  And no I do not believe that they are being mean to them or focusing only on them.  It really was a simple question that was taken different than I intented.

I think that they came to the conclusion that the police were trying to frame them.  IMO if that is the case, or even if I suspected it to be true, I wouldn't be being "Interviewed" either.
I can see your point.  I still carry confidence that police today do not do that...but, I haven't been in that position either.
Logged

"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." Sir Josiah Stamp

“I don't have anything to gain. It's not going to save my daughter's life. But it could save your daughter's life.”  ~Mark Lunsford
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #792 on: October 26, 2011, 07:55:35 PM »


Lisa Irwin: Prime News 10/26/11 Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/u/1/1Tw0KCCuHV0
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
Pattianne
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #793 on: October 26, 2011, 08:07:47 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html

Oh, come on wth are they hiding.........
This indeed is turning into another @$#%% case. 
Can't bring myself to say the name. Monkey Devil!

Can they really refuse to talk to police?  If so, there is something really wrong with the system (like we didn't know that already).

They have to be charged with something before police can force them to be interviewed.

Sorry, under no circumstances can LE force you to be interviewed.  It is one of the most cherished of Constitutional rights.  Remember the Miranda warning?  "You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to have an attorney with you, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed, etc."   In fact, they can't even take you into custody unless they are arresting you and they must tell you what they are arresting you for.  If you agree to be interviewed, you can say at any time that you want your attorney and they must immediately stop.  Surely no one thinks this is a flaw in our justice system.

I thank God that I live in a country where being forced to give evidence against myself is illegal.  In the old days they used to beat you with a rubber hose to make you talk.  Not any more.

We all know that your Miranda rights have to be read to you.  You can also refuse to answer during the interview.  However, if you are charged with a crime the police most certainly do have the right to interview you.


You might want to read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

I have read the Fifth Amendment which states in part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

You will note that my above posted stated:

They have to be charged with something before police can force them to be interviewed.

Logged
higherhopes
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6581



« Reply #794 on: October 26, 2011, 08:24:10 PM »

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

Read more -

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/justice/missouri-missing-girl/index.html
That's all I can say without being banned.
hmmm......uhh yea....guess I would be right behind you on the banned list if I said what I really want to...lol


I just read where JI came home from the 2nd job to eat....no link, my dad told me he heard it on HLN but I did find this..https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1169347021&ref=ts#!/groups/247978151920153/252359684815333/?notif_t=group_activity  There is a discussion of this, now if it was in between jobs, no issue BUT if he came home and ate after going to his 2nd job, well I have a major issue with that as well as 80% of the way this couple has behaved, the bulk of their concern is for me me me, not baby Lisa.....just like the Cummings/Croslin clan - of course JMO
Yes, and if that turns out to be true then I would most certainly have a huge problem with it as well.......
   All these reasons for not talking to the cops are a huge red flag to me.....I dont see how the parents could be charged with anything if they didnt do anything......
    The parents , if indeed feel like the police are suspecting  them, brought that on themselves with lies and distractions that "made" them look guilty, 
     
   Thats one of the things that people dont think about when they say....oh the cops are being mean to us or they are trying to blame us instead of looking in other places........well.....thats because you have given them reasons to look at you........just think about it.......when you change your story.......then dont tell them things that they find out later on you forgot to mention well....you are the reason they are looking your way, they have to clear you as a suspect before they can move on and if all they get are inconsistency;s from you well, then thats the reason they focus on you......Good Lord, its amazing to me that people cant see that, be straight with LE and they will see that you are giving them everything you can so that they can stop focusing on you and go on to the next step!!!!!
Logged

I don't know, I was at work....I don't know, I was sleeping........Where is Haleigh???????
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #795 on: October 26, 2011, 08:24:14 PM »

 



Now on HLN they are saying the drinking neighbor stayed with the kids when she went to the store WTF!!!!

Jim Spellman just said that......
Hmmm

So Jeremy wasn't home when DB went to buy wine.

Jeremy claims he didn't leave for work for at least a half hour after her trip to the store. (IIRC he said 5:20, oddly specific---- much like Lisa going to bed at 6:40)

Jeremy said police were interested in the 2 hours he was at home. So was that two hours between jobs or two hours at some other point during the evening or night?

Did he leave for the 2nd job earlier than he claimed?

Where WAS he when DB was at the store?

Clarification....JI didn't mention that the 2 hours were "at home". He just said they were interested in the 2 hours. We speculated that it was 2 hours between day job and night job but it was never stated for sure.


SO, the LE are interested in his day...I wondered why he and various media were stating LE said he needed no poly, yet whe Cpt Young was asked...e stated no comment, I NEVER heard him state that he was well and good with JI's timeline and until I do, I call BS. Nelson Serrano had a fabulous alibi, except those pesky fingerprints. So I want to know why JI wasn't poly'd, but of course it could be that he has refused to be seperated from sippy mom when LE interviews them and I am pretty sure LE would one  alone when they poly them....crazy I know
Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
starshadow
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #796 on: October 26, 2011, 08:24:54 PM »

Not-so-random comments:

Re: Clothing
How many purple pairs of shorts do the little girls you know own? My daughter has at least 3 or 4 now, at age 9. As an infant and a toddler, though, pretty much all her clothes were pink, purple, or some combination thereof... especially since my three older children were boys! It'd be more unusual if there were no purple shorts still in the home. Same thing for the shirt.

Re: the person walking vidoo
Pretty much can't see a darn thing in it, and about all that can be said for sure is that the person probably isn't wearing a really dark color. Reflection can make non-white clothing look white. I'm curious what the 15-30 seconds just PRIOR to the released clip shows. If it showed someone on the sidewalk, well then, they'd have been on the sidewalk. But because they didn't release that portion of the video, I'm inclined to think that portion doesn't show someone walking through it - which would imply that the person came out of the grassy or wooded area. Has that woods been search yet? Seems like it should be, pronto. Because, if this *was* the same person seen carrying a baby, and at this point they weren't - well, that's a mighty convenient hiding place.

Re: the alcohol
Seriously, people. The recommendation to stay below the legal limit is that a person drink no more than one drink per hour. If the mom had five drinks during those four or so hours, that's quite possibly not even going to make her tipsy, let alone drunk, especially since she's obviously not stick-thin, and she apparently ate dinner during that time period also. Even if she'd drank the entire ten drinks during that four hour period, it's entirely possibly she'd register right near the legal limit. That's NOT anything close to stumbling drunk. It IS however, highly likely that she felt somewhat tipsy at that point, and that yes, would answer that as "being drunk"... especially with the way it was phrased in the interview. Was she totally out of it? Probably nowhere near. Is falling asleep and sleeping heavily "passing out from being drunk"? No, I wouldn't say so... no more than I'd say falling asleep after taking Tylenol PM would be. (And that stuff leaves me groggy for a solid 24 hours after taking one dose, and I literally cannot wake up for a good six-eight hours after taking it.)

Re: Interviewing the parents
Let me guess - the cops want the parents interviewed separately, without attorneys to advise them, in hopes of bullying one of them into confessing, regardless of whether or not there is anything to confess? Even if the parents were dumb enough to agree to that, I sure as heck hope their attorneys would prevent it! I certainly wouldn't comply with that.

Also, if LE had previously been verbally abusive during the initial interview, I can certainly understand why they would be disinclined to repeat the experience.

Also, now that I think about it - say she was as over-the-top drunk as some of you think. If she was, she still would have been incapacitated during that first interview that was immediately after the baby was reported missing. It's been said multiple times now, that interview started less than an hour after the baby was reported missing, and that LE was accusing her almost immediately.

So, had she been sloppy drunk that night, #1, she still would have been during that interview, and if she were guilty, it's very likely she would have already confessed at that point. Yet another reason I don't think she was as "drunk" as some of you think. (And if she wasn't sloppy drunk, then you've lost your reason for the assumption that she's a bad mother.)

Also, #2, it would have been VERY OBVIOUS to the police that she was still inebriated. I doubt the whole early situation would have played out the way it did had she been. She likely would have sat and sobered up in the drunk tank.

Because, #3 - anything she said at that point, while incapacitated, would have been invalid, because she would have been too drunk to understand the Miranda warning. And since they clearly didn't feel the need to wait til she sobered up, that's a pretty good sign that she wasn't drunk.

Re: Interviewing the kids
It ought to be pretty darn obvious what the DNA is for - that they'd want to rule out the boys' DNA from whatever samples they picked up in the house. No way in hell I'd let someone interview my children without be extremely cautious about the circumstances - while people trained to do that are better than otherwise, it's still a very hit-and-miss situation, and it can do a significant amount of damage to the psyche of a child. I've seen the damage done by so-called "safe interviews" to kids that my in-laws foster care for. The foster care system is largely an out-of-the-frying-pan, into-the-fire sort of mess.

Acceptable interview length is 5 minutes per year of age. Those initial interviews were ALREADY LONGER THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Re: body language in the picture where she's leaning on him
How is that unusual body language? My guy is totally reserved in public. Around people he doesn't know, he isn't a smiling, effusive person. Public displays of affection are not his thing - he just figures it isn't everyone else's business.

This positioning would be (and has been in the past) perfectly normal for me and my guy during a time of high stress. We've been to enough funerals and hospital bedsides this year - I know. Even though he's reserved when out in public - at home, he's the sweetest, kindest, most honest guy I've known - and by far the most affectionate. Compared to my ex, he's a treasure.

What I see in that picture? She's leaning on him for support, and he's allowing it. He's not manhandling her - they're out in public. Her head is tucked under his chin. He can't fix things and make them right, even though he'd like to. He's giving her emotional support - actually, I'd say strength - to get through this.

re: in summary
Honestly, she's got more tolerance than I do. Had some officer been accusing me of making one of my kids go missing when I had nothing to do with it, I think I'd have probably serious considered offering to kick their ass. And I'm doubtful I'd have been in any condition to think clearly enough to prevent myself. I'm certain I would have been pretty darn angry if they were harassing me instead of just finding my child.

And really, "force" them to talk? I can't believe 1) some of you think that's legal, and 2) others of you think it ought to be.

And one more thing. It'd be nice if people would be less like name-calling brats and more like the adults we supposedly are. It's gotten old. And these threads would be half as long without the chaff to wade through!
Logged
starshadow
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #797 on: October 26, 2011, 08:28:46 PM »

Oh, and one more thing.

Polygraphs are not admissible in court for a reason - they're not reliable. They might make the public feel better, but the fact is, they're NOT GOOD SCIENCE.

All they're good for is trying to out-psych someone into a confession, whether real or false.

It obviously didn't work in this case. Get over it.


ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING - THUS, YOU ARE BANNED
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 09:00:51 PM by klaasend » Logged
stayhomemommy
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2815



« Reply #798 on: October 26, 2011, 08:29:15 PM »


I think that they came to the conclusion that the police were trying to frame them.  IMO if that is the case, or even if I suspected it to be true, I wouldn't be being "Interviewed" either.

I can see your point.  I still carry confidence that police today do not do that...but, I haven't been in that position either.

I used to believe the best about the police. But more and more I see stories like this one, where a woman was jailed for 53 days because she had the same FIRST name (that's it...nothing else the same) as someone else...and, well, it makes me wonder.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/teresa-culpepper-jailed-53-days-because-first-name_n_1019730.html

Logged
higherhopes
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6581



« Reply #799 on: October 26, 2011, 08:37:06 PM »

Oh, and one more thing.

Polygraphs are not admissible in court for a reason - they're not reliable. They might make the public feel better, but the fact is, they're NOT GOOD SCIENCE.

All they're good for is trying to out-psych someone into a confession, whether real or false.

It obviously didn't work in this case. Get over it.
well then, if thats the case then why does everyone freak out when they fail it, I know, and so does everyone else here, that LDT's are not admissible in court but its not the LDT that makes me believe that DB had something to do with her daughter being gone.....its the things she has said herself that makes me believe that!
Logged

I don't know, I was at work....I don't know, I was sleeping........Where is Haleigh???????
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 0.132 seconds with 19 queries.