There's been a lot of discussion about lie detector tests and their reliability and whether someone should take one. The tests themselves are not admissible in court and the whole idea of them, in my opinion, is to gauge a person's reaction to just being asked to take one. It’s an investigative tool that is used to help get to the truth early on in an investigation if possible. If LE have proof that there have been inconsistencies in a witness statement and then that witness cannot or will not work with them to figure out why those inconsistencies are coming to light then that is a huge red flag to them. So when they ask someone to take a lie detector test, they are initially gauging the person's reaction to the fact that LE finds them less than truthful. And pretty much giving them the chance to “come clean” and explain what may have happened.
The actual results may or may not be used to further the case, and as we are all aware are not completely reliable, pass or fail, but the initial reaction of the witness to the suggestion helps with the investigation IMO. Common sense, once again, would indicate that an innocent person would be doing everything they can to clear their name and would jump at the chance to take a lie detector to help do so. Common sense also tells us that when someone decides right then and there to stop co-operating when confronted with inconsistencies in their story, refuses to take a lie detector and gets a lawyer to shield them from any further interrogation, then they must have something to hide. And just because they have a lawyer is no reason to stop co-operating. They have every right to continue to work with LE with their lawyer right by their side if they feel that LE is unfairly pointing fingers at them. DSJr did not do this. And MN is a very qualified lawyer and would have been more than willing to do this if DSJr had wanted to work to clear his name. The lawyer works for you and a good one would encourage their client to work and speak with LE if their client were shouting his innocence from the rooftops. From what I understand, DSJr lost his job due to being named a suspect. And I'm sure his life is not easy at the moment, financially, emotionally and socially, because of the popular public opinion that he's responsible for the disappearance and most likely death of Michelle. Why would a good lawyer want to put their client through that unnecessarily? Why would someone think it’s a good idea to put themselves through that unnecessarily?
LE are not usually so fortunate to have a crime on videotape, therefore basically solving itself. Nor do they usually have a direct witness or witnesses to a crime, who are not involved, come forward to tell them what happened, unless the crime was committed in a very public place. And even then they would still have to collect evidence to corroborate that witness testimony. So that is when the real police work begins and evidence has to be collected slowly and methodically. Most of it will be circumstantial because most perpetrators try to cover their crimes and some are quite good at it, especially now with the new crime shows on television and the high profile cases that are played out in the media and on the internet. Cases are tried on circumstantial evidence alone when the evidence puts together a logical picture of what likely occurred. Sometimes there are missing pieces to that logical picture and therefore the most likely suspect is not arrested until those pieces are found. Sometimes it takes months or years, and sometimes it never happens. But in the meantime that person is, and will always be, the prime suspect in the disappearance and likely murder of a missing individual. Not something I'd want hanging over my head just because I decided to be stubborn and stop co-operating with LE. But something that I'd have no choice about I suppose if I was guilty and could not explain away the evidence they had against me.
MOO
