Lie Detector Tests & Corruption: A public figure speaks out

[Steely Dan]

IMO, LE should NEVER stop looking at other avenues and focus on one person until a conviction. Even when EVERYTHING points to that one person, they should never stop looking. Because the minute they focus on one person and one person only, they put blinders on. Those blinders only allow them to see evidence that points to that person's guilt. They miss evidence that may cause a jury to find reasonable doubt.

It is not that the "defendant" is not guilty. It is about being able to make the jury see reasonable doubt. When LE has blinders on, they stop looking at the case from a defense point of view. They will not investigate other leads. They are sure those leads are false which they probable are false. However, by not investigating them, they open the door for the defense. The defense will make the argument that they focused on the defendant and did not consider other possibilities. If any of those other leads results in a witness testifying to another suspect, the State is really in trouble. Because if they had not had their blinders on, they would have considered the possibility, investigated it, and proved it was not a lead. But they decided they did not need to do that because they were sure they had the right person.

IMO, most defendants are represented by overworked and underpaid public defenders who do not have the time, the knowledge, and/or the resources to properly prepare a defense. As a result both the prosecutors and LE have become complacent. They cut corners, they do not thoroughly investigate, they focus on who they think is guilty because they know the chances of the public defender putting on a great defense is slim. Then they got a defendant who has the great defense attorney and the resources to put that complacency on trial and juries find reasonable doubt.

IMO, if they were never complacent to begin with, it would not matter if the defendant had a public defender or a great defense attorney...their case would stand the test of both.

BBM

IMO, that's just not practical. If my kid is missing I don't want LE wasting time on CA's latest crackpot theory on what happened to Caylee. LE has a lot of real crime to investigate. Should they ever close the door or ignore credible leads? No, but I don't want them wasting time and money on things that are already settled. In the KC case things are settled to my satisfaction. KC killed Caylee IMO.

When it comes to the KH case and TH I sure hope they haven't closed any avenues. I have no proof that they have.

By making LE check out every lead you get trials that take years to happen. Most DA's, IMO, don't make the evidence fit a suspect. They find a suspect because that person fits the evidence. JMO

 

[1Chump]

We know LE does not have "probable cause" because Terri has not been arrested for anything. At the very least, if they had probable cause to arrest Terri for the MFH, they would do it. The MFH case is not the one they care about. Any prosecutor would be willing to throw away that case for Kyron's case. strictly to pressure her. The problem with the MFH is that the most they could get her for would be "attempted muder for hire." But even that is doubtful. Because there is nothing to suggest that Terri ever tried to go through with murdering Kaine. So what did it take for Kaine to believe it?

Respectfully snipped for space.

LE may have probable cause but that does not equate to enough to win a conviction. The state would send it back to LE if they felt there was not enough to convict. And if they arrested TH with probable cause but not enough to get a conviction, the clock would start ticking and the matter would have to be dismissed if TH asserted her speedy trial rights and LE did not have enough by the time the trial was to begin. That would be an exercise in futility and a huge waste of taxpayer money during a recession. So it is simply not true that the lack of an arrest proves there is no probable cause to arrest.

I do not mind that you snipped my post. However, could you please not snip it to change the context.

As I stated after you snipped it, "any prosecutor would be willing to throw away that case for Kyron's case, strictly to pressure her."

At the time that Kaine filed for the RO, Terri did not have an attorney and had no idea that they were even looking at her for potential murder for hire. With all the focus on her, it was a matter of time before she did get an attorney. So they should have upped the pressure before she did hire an attorney. If they had probable cause to arrest for the MFH, they would have strictly to pressure her.

No reason for me to discuss my opinons on the trial/conviction as I made it clear that they would have a hard time making any case. It is not uncommon for people to be arrested and the case be dismissed for lack of evidence either by LE or the prosecutor jumping the gun.

 

[1Chump]

Brilliant post!!!! The thanks button wasn't enough. And I wanted to add, What pervert or child molester has ever been lucky enough to have all of the above direct suspicion away from them? I think that is what has bothered me the most. I've never seen a case where there are so many suspicious things about one person that takes away from the real predator. It's usually just luck on a few things here and there that make the predator slip through the cracks, not the greatest patsy of all time just happening to fall into their lap or delivered to them on a silver platter. TH is just the gift that keeps on giving if a sexual predator was involved. The LDT is just another lucky portion here for the predator - the patsy can't even pass an LDT among the other things you've listed. It's like it was Christmas in June for this predator, if there was one. My mind is open to it, but it just doesn't seem very likely to me.

We do not know if TH did or did not pass an LDT. We know that LE told TH she did not pass. But we have no way of knowing if they told her the truth or lied to her.

A LDT is an investigative tool. LE will and can legally lie to you and say you failed when you passed. LE can lie about anything thing including evidence and witnesses. If LE wants to ask you more questions or believe you know more and want to pressure you, they are going to tell you failed the LDT to get you to come in for more testing and/or questions.

Because if they admit you pass, you most likely will not come in for more questions and/or testing.

 

[gitana1]

I do not mind that you snipped my post. However, could you please not snip it to change the context.

As I stated after you snipped it, "any prosecutor would be willing to throw away that case for Kyron's case, strictly to pressure her."

At the time that Kaine filed for the RO, Terri did not have an attorney and had no idea that they were even looking at her for potential murder for hire. With all the focus on her, it was a matter of time before she did get an attorney. So they should have upped the pressure before she did hire an attorney. If they had probable cause to arrest for the MFH, they would have strictly to pressure her.

No reason for me to discuss my opinons on the trial/conviction as I made it clear that they would have a hard time making any case. It is not uncommon for people to be arrested and the case be dismissed for lack of evidence either by LE or the prosecutor jumping the gun.

I'm sorry, I did not snip your post in order to change the context. I'm above that kind of thing. I snipped it merely because I was addressing one point you made and did not want to waste space. You stated there has been no arrest thus probable cause must not exist. I showed why that is just not true.

 

[craftybatchy]

bbm~

How so? She hasn't been charged (so you can't be talking about LE) and certainly no one here can convict her. Plus, as I've said, I simply don't like the woman based on what I know and what I've heard. I specifically said that I wouldn't convict her based on what I know now. And so have many others. So, what? She is sadly being unfairly disliked and mistrusted. I"ve made plenty of *bad choices* in my life (ugh, I hate that euphemism -- especially when applied to a grown woman) and it is absolutely fair for people to judge me based on them. It is up to me to show that I have recognized, owned and changed my bad decisionmaking if I want people to see who I "really am" now -- not to keep doing the same ridiculous things, especially when I'm under a microscope (holy cow, the sexting for example). If I can't or won't do that than my "bad chioices" are really just who I am . . . And it is certainly fair to be judged on who you are.

Standing in judgement of another based on our personal perceptions of what we believe someone has done is what it is - part of human nature. I don't know that I would agree upon the fairness of it though.

Still, standing in judgement is one thing - being found guilty is a whole other ball o' wax.

 

[1Chump]

BBM

IMO, that's just not practical. If my kid is missing I don't want LE wasting time on CA's latest crackpot theory on what happened to Caylee. LE has a lot of real crime to investigate. Should they ever close the door or ignore credible leads? No, but I don't want them wasting time and money on things that are already settled. In the KC case things are settled to my satisfaction. KC killed Caylee IMO.
When it comes to the KH case and TH I sure hope they haven't closed any avenues. I have no proof that they have.

By making LE check out every lead you get trials that take years to happen. Most DA's, IMO, don't make the evidence fit a suspect. They find a suspect because that person fits the evidence. JMO

Your satisfaction does not make a conviction. IMO, no case is settled until they get a conviction. I don't want to just know who did it. I want that guilty person behind bars so there will be no more victims.

IMO, Casey's case has the best example of LE getting complacent. I believe Ray Kronck (sp) called three times in August to report a bag with a skull. He was not taken seriously because that area had already been searched. LE never considered that the searchers could have missed something. If LE would have responded appropriately, they would have had forensic evidence to make their case much stronger. The Defense also would not be able to be using that entire situation either.

Obviously, they cannot check out every lead. I never said that. But the Ray Kronck lead was very plausible. It was close to the Anthony home in an area that was known to have water, Caylee had not been found and searchers are not on their hands and knees searching every inch. Searchers do a great job but they can miss things. If a lead like that one could be overlooked, it makes you wonder what other leads could have been possibly overlooked.

BTW, I am not saying anything about Casey Anthony's guilt...just using her case as an example.

As far as finding a suspect because they fit the evidence, I have to disagree. How many times do you hear LE has to rule out the family or boyfriend, etc.? Why would they need rule out anyone immediately after a crime occurs if the evidence leads them to a suspect?

Because statitics show that the "majority" of crimes are committed by someone close to the victim, LE starts there. They also have the same gut feelings/instincts we do. We hear them say that the boyfriend did not "act" like someone who had just found his girlfriend murdered. Really, how should a boyfriend act?

Psychologists say that everyone grieves differently, everyone reacts to death differently. But cops will focus on someone who does not act the way they think they should act. What do they base that on? The same thing we base our opinions on....our feellings, our personall experiences, the type of person we are.

LE should let the evidence lead them to a suspect but they don't. They have people they want to "rule" out way before the evidence is processed.

 

[Steely Dan]

Your satisfaction does not make a conviction. IMO, no case is settled until they get a conviction. I don't want to just know who did it. I want that guilty person behind bars so there will be no more victims.

IMO, Casey's case has the best example of LE getting complacent. I believe Ray Kronck (sp) called three times in August to report a bag with a skull. He was not taken seriously because that area had already been searched. LE never considered that the searchers could have missed something. If LE would have responded appropriately, they would have had forensic evidence to make their case much stronger. The Defense also would not be able to be using that entire situation either.

Obviously, they cannot check out every lead. I never said that. But the Ray Kronck lead was very plausible. It was close to the Anthony home in an area that was known to have water, Caylee had not been found and searchers are not on their hands and knees searching every inch. Searchers do a great job but they can miss things. If a lead like that one could be overlooked, it makes you wonder what other leads could have been possibly overlooked.

BTW, I am not saying anything about Casey Anthony's guilt...just using her case as an example.

As far as finding a suspect because they fit the evidence, I have to disagree. How many times do you hear LE has to rule out the family or boyfriend, etc.? Why would they need rule out anyone immediately after a crime occurs if the evidence leads them to a suspect?

Because statitics show that the "majority" of crimes are committed by someone close to the victim, LE starts there. They also have the same gut feelings/instincts we do. We hear them say that the boyfriend did not "act" like someone who had just found his girlfriend murdered. Really, how should a boyfriend act?

Psychologists say that everyone grieves differently, everyone reacts to death differently. But cops will focus on someone who does not act the way they think they should act. What do they base that on? The same thing we base our opinions on....our feellings, our personall experiences, the type of person we are.

LE should let the evidence lead them to a suspect but they don't. They have people they want to "rule" out way before the evidence is processed.

I agree with some of what you've said and disagree with some of what you've said.

LE in the Caylee case did respond to Kronk's calls. The officer who responded didn't act professionally. They did respond to his calls though.

You've said they shouldn't follow every lead but then criticize LE for not following leads in the KH case. (Which, I believe nobody outside of LE knows if they did or not.) I think we both agree that "credible" leads should be looked at. I think we'd disagree on what comprises a "credible" lead.

Statistics show that the vast majority of crimes are committed by those close to the victim. We agree on that. What it seems we don't agree on is that it's a very good strategy to begin with the highest statistical chances.

How do you think they should start? Doesn't it make sense to start down the road with highest percentage of suspects caught? If someone murdered someone I know I wouldn't want them to start with the least likely scenario and move up from there.

It's a horrible, horrible thing to have somebody put away that's innocent but I think that's the exception to the rule. It seems like you believe it's the rule and the guilty being caught is the exception. JMO