black_squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,181
- Reaction score
- 990
You can believe this if you want. You can have your conclusions and I'll stick with mine. I believe they were generally referring to all tested people. An inconclusive polygraph isn't really a pass or a failure thus it is usually disregarded.
I didn't mean to tell anyone what to believe and what not. I keep all possibilities open, but I think the meaning "Everyone that has been polygraphed at this point has not only
cooperated with the investigation but passed the polygraph." is clear. Surely, if you have been polygraphed, and it was inconclusive, then you still have been polygraphed.
However, the detective could have been misleading the reporter, for example to avoid unpleasant follow-up questions. (And sometime LE flat-out lies if it suits them. For
example in the Paul DeWolf case in nearby Ann Arbor, LE made a statement that nothing was missing. It later turned out that a playstation was stolen and this is how
they tracked ther perpetrators.)
I am wondering where the information that one of the polygraph's was inconclusive came from. I doubt that the person who posted it was present at the polygraph test. Did
the police give her that information? I have not heard the police say directly that JT passed a polygraph test, nor have I heard that he failed one,
nor have I heard that a polygraph test was inconclusive. If the police is giving out that kind of information to close family, then you could perhaps also get more details from the police.
I think, whether or not JT passed just one or both polygraph tests is important, even if these test cannot be used in court. I am not necessarily trying to take JT's side, but I am
trying to figure out what exactly the facts are.