Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The reason everyone thinks Clint is hiding something is simply because he refused the polygraph test. He could have put all this to rest if he had just taken it. I understand his reasoning for not doing it, but it definitely doesn't help convince anyone of his innocence.
Is it possible they did hook up after leaving the bar? Just the two of them , not Meredith. And that's when whatever happened, happened. Thus leaving Clint to claim he never saw Brian after the bar. Just an idea.
Rosenberg also said in his e-mail to Corbett that, “The only burning issue with the authorities remains Clint’s refusal to be polygraphed. That decision was based on my recommendation and advise [sic] to Clint, not because he is, has been misleading or has something to hide, but that he simply has nothing new to tell and was totally up front and honest with them from the beginning. As far as Clint is concerned, this matter is closed.”
In a telephone interview Friday, Meredith Reed, a friend of both Shaffer and Florence who was with them that night, said she took and passed a polygraph about a month after Shaffer disappeared.
She said she assumes the Columbus Police asked her to take the test.
In fact, everyone who was asked to take a polygraph passed it, Miles said.
But not everyone who knew Brian or who had seen him the night he went missing was asked to take a polygraph.
The last time Shaffer was seen on surveillance video outside the Ugly Tuna Saloona he was with two women, Brightan Zatko and Amber Ruic. Ruic said in a phone interview Friday that she was never asked to take a polygraph.
Are you referring to Derek's comment about Clint speaking negatively about Brian after the disappearance? I remember reading an article where Clint said something about Brian having a history of mouthing off when he drank, and Derek and Randy both thought that was completely uncalled for to sayDerek used the term "negative" , not angry. Sorry, still didn't find the actual link to the article.
I assume that Clint's phone records were checked? If the 2 of them did meet up again after the bar, surely Clint would have had to get in contact with him or vice versa, likely via phone call. Clint says that Brian's phone was shut off by 2 am, so if the records indicate no activity after that time then it was unlikely they were in contact after Clint left the barIs it possible they did hook up after leaving the bar? Just the two of them , not Meredith. And that's when whatever happened, happened. Thus leaving Clint to claim he never saw Brian after the bar. Just an idea.
Is it possible they did hook up after leaving the bar? Just the two of them , not Meredith. And that's when whatever happened, happened. Thus leaving Clint to claim he never saw Brian after the bar. Just an idea.
I agree, but even if he had taken a polygraph and passed it, there would still be those who think he's holding back and accuse him of somehow beating the test. The way I see it, no matter how Clint handled it, it was a no win situation for him. Sometimes, there's just no convincing some people, one way or the other.
In a telephone interview Friday, Meredith Reed, a friend of both Shaffer and Florence who was with them that night, said she took and passed a polygraph about a month after Shaffer disappeared.
She said she assumes the Columbus Police asked her to take the test.
I disagree. Just talking for myself, but if one of my friends was truly missing or in danger--I would set aside personal risk to share as much as possible whenever asked. If Clint had taken a polygraph, he would be viewed the same way as everyone else. Because he didn't, bc he spoke negatively abt Brian, and bc his lawyers implied they believed Brian was alive, it drew suspicion to Clint over others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Although it’s been a decade, police are still looking for answers. Sgt. John Hurst was originally assigned the case and still works on it today.
He says there’s not a day that goes by that he doesn’t wonder what happened to Shaffer.
“My hope is that someday that we do have the answers that everybody is looking for,” says Sgt. Hurst.
He says they’ve scoured over thousands of hours of surveillance video and interviewed hundreds of people.
He says the news of finding LaBute’s body in the Scioto River earlier this week, coupled with his experience on the Shaffer case has left him sleepless.
rbbm.He says they still follow up on tips or leads on the Brian Shaffer case today. The last one they had was about 8 months ago.
He still encourages anyone with information to call CrimeStoppers.
Shaffer has never been found. There have been many theories on what happened to him including suicide, foul play or that he just walked away from his life. Sgt. Hurst says all are possible, but none have been proven.
So, what you're saying is that you would risk being arrested and possibly convicted for a murder you didn't commit, all for your friend? Truly? Or do you think you can just talk your way out of it because, gosh darn it, you didn't do it? Just curious, have you ever been accused of a crime and interrogated by the police?
Is there any sort of technology they can use to detect skeletal remains in walls? If so, did they ever try this on the current building where the construction was? It would be nice to even be able to rule just one thing out. Or maybe something that can detect certain metals, because if he's in the construction site he likely still has his phone and keys with him
I would absolutely do a lie detector test. at risk to myself. The risk is overstated. No one can be convicted by a lie detector alone. They're not even admissible in many courts. If I didn't do anything, I would not be concerned about a conviction. I might worry about public opinion shifting, but those losses wouldn't outweigh my friend's life.
I haven't been charged with a crime but I have risked my own life to help someone before.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would absolutely do a lie detector test. at risk to myself. The risk is overstated. No one can be convicted by a lie detector alone. They're not even admissible in many courts. If I didn't do anything, I would not be concerned about a conviction. I might worry about public opinion shifting, but those losses wouldn't outweigh my friend's life.
I haven't been charged with a crime but I have risked my own life to help someone before.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BBM- I thought that, too, that if I didn't do anything I wouldn't be concerned about a conviction, but I was never more wrong.
I'd share my story of being falsely accused of a crime and nearly having my life ruined, and being interrogated by the police for something I didn't do, but I know it won't make a hill of beans. Those of you who have never been in the hot seat personally, will never understand how precious the right to remain silent & protecting yourself from self incrimination is. I'm not even going to waste my time trying to convince you. Suffice to say, should you find yourself a victim of circumstance, you'll learn first hand.