TH's polygraphs

[nurseratchett]

When my service dog disappeared, there were daily sightings. That's what kept me going. I knew he was out there, I knew he missed me. One of the most heartbreaking sightings for me was very early on, when someone reported seeing him sitting by himself on the other side of a creek, licking his front paws (a stress habit for him) and crying.

The first evening, after I signed out of the hospital AMA, I was a wreck. I didn't think I could eat, sleep or do anything but search for my boy (dog).

I ate because I had to eat in order to be able to keep moving. I slept because I had to sleep in order to be able to search some more. I kept up with the post-surgical eye care regimen (which involved six different medications) because I needed my eyesight in order to keep searching for him.

I was absolutely convinced the entire time that his faith in me was still intact and I was damned if I would allow my faith in him to break. I would never betray him because I knew he would never betray me.

What I discovered was that when I had to, I could do a lot of stuff that I never imagined I could. I sucked it up in ways I would never have dreamed would be possible.

What it came down to was this: I knew that no one else loved him the way I loved him, so it was up to me to make getting back together possible.

Yes, afterwards I was a wreck. But that didn't matter because he was right there next to me as I recovered.

He's lying on my feet as I write this.

I think Desiree is likely similar to you in her approach to Kyron. As you so eloquently stated, you knew his faith and trust in you would not waiver, he deserved the same from you, and you did what you had to in order to provide it. What a lovely ending. :angel:

 

[BeanE]

I can't get this part of LE's statement at the press conference out of my mind:

Regarding the use of polygraphs - This is simply an investigative tool that may help to further an investigation.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/i...76/37069/Sheriff_office_HormanPress072710.pdf

It's sandwiched between statements about tips, and statements about number and types of personnel. It's so unrelated to either, it seems just randomly - almost accidentally - thrown in there. But I'm sure the statement was reviewed, and I'm sure it's meant to be there.

So... why? Why was it important to state this. And it's almost a half-finished thought. Polys are simply investigative tools... I want the thought finished with "as opposed to... something".

Why in the world did they state this? It struck me as LE almost defending Terri, because what's been said about polys, is that she failed hers.

 

[Kimster]

IMO, they are playing "good cop, bad cop" and the cops are the good cops and KH and DY are the bad cops. That's just what I'm thinking. Remember, I'm the one who read a lot of books by Ann Rule. :floorlaugh:

 

[tiredblondy]

Also the information regarding software that can identify where tips are coming from??? Who was that a message to??

 

[tiredblondy]

IMO, they are playing "good cop, bad cop" and the cops are the good cops and KH and DY are the bad cops. That's just what I'm thinking. Remember, I'm the one who read a lot of books by Ann Rule. :floorlaugh:

AHHHHhhhhhh, I'd forgotten that theory. Some of us watch a lot of Criminal Minds too! :angel:

 

[citigirl]

I agree with you--it was strange. Your interpretation is a good one. I also though (devil's advocate) that they were saying, "we know how to get convictions, and we are aware that polygraphs are not going to help us in court."

Another possibility is that LE was trying to say that using a polygraph on the three friends whose homes were searched did not mean they were involved.

Do you think LE could have had threats from Houze that there are certain things that needed to be made clear or her was going to sue?

 

[BeanE]

I agree with you--it was strange. Your interpretation is a good one. I also though (devil's advocate) that they were saying, "we know how to get convictions, and we are aware that polygraphs are not going to help us in court."

Another possibility is that LE was trying to say that using a polygraph on the three friends whose homes were searched did not mean they were involved.

Do you think LE could have had threats from Houze that there are certain things that needed to be made clear or her was going to sue?

Oh you're right! It may have had nothing whatever to do with Terri, but been in reference to the friends. hmmmm....

 

[TxLady2]

He is saying that LDT's cannot be used against anyone in court, so not to put much faith in a person passing or failing one. It won't come up at trial. He is merely telling everyone that LE uses them strictly as an investigative tool... it serves THEIR purpose, which is to investigate the case. They're not there to prosecute... only to investigate.
Hope that helps.
I'm sure some questions were brought up about the LDT's that Terri failed/walked out on. So he is assuring everyone that it doesn't matter in the long run.

 

[debs]

I can't get this part of LE's statement at the press conference out of my mind:

Regarding the use of polygraphs - This is simply an investigative tool that may help to further an investigation.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/i...76/37069/Sheriff_office_HormanPress072710.pdf

It's sandwiched between statements about tips, and statements about number and types of personnel. It's so unrelated to either, it seems just randomly - almost accidentally - thrown in there. But I'm sure the statement was reviewed, and I'm sure it's meant to be there.

So... why? Why was it important to state this. And it's almost a half-finished thought. Polys are simply investigative tools... I want the thought finished with "as opposed to... something".

Why in the world did they state this? It struck me as LE almost defending Terri, because what's been said about polys, is that she failed hers.

Maybe it was just that he was answering bullet points rather than a scripted narrative.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I agree with you--it was strange. Your interpretation is a good one. I also though (devil's advocate) that they were saying, "we know how to get convictions, and we are aware that polygraphs are not going to help us in court."

I guess I'm the Devil's Advocate today, too, because I just think he means that they can't actually use a polygraph in court. Therefore it is just a tool.

What often happens is that they use it as a way to rule people out, not a much as rule people in. If Kaine and Desiree both have alibis for that day and they pass the polygraph without any red flags, they probably had nothing to do with Kyron's disappearance. If Terri's story is all over the place and then she flunks a polygraph, they are going to look at her more closely - or her friends who might know something about her day.

JMO

 

[Sherbie]

Maybe it was just that he was answering bullet points rather than a scripted narrative.

I agree, Debs. Seems he was reiterating the written answers that had been supplied to the reporters' questions a few days ago. It was pretty much a rehash of those earlier written responses.

 

[daisy7]

Didn't they also say the same in answering the written questions last week? Sorry, I don't have that link handy (BeanE- can you help me out with this?).

As I understand it, LE has not said that Terri failed her poly(s); we are only hearing this from others. Also, there are the LE statements after past KH and DY press conferences that (paraphrasing) "these statements do not come from LE," which KH and DY confirmed in their audio interview last night.

These two things together, does make me think that LE may be defending Terri, or at the very least, trying to discount what KH and DY are saying.

Why? Well, I don't know if they are telling the truth or trying to play a game with someone.

BTW -- I've read almost all of Ann Rule's books and Criminal Minds is one of my favorite shows!!

 

[Sherbie]

Didn't they also say the same in answering the written questions last week? Sorry, I don't have that link handy (BeanE- can you help me out with this?).

As I understand it, LE has not said that Terri failed her poly(s); we are only hearing this from others. Also, there are the LE statements after past KH and DY press conferences that (paraphrasing) "these statements do not come from LE," which KH and DY confirmed in their audio interview last night.

These two things together, does make me think that LE may be defending Terri, or at the very least, trying to discount what KH and DY are saying.

Why? Well, I don't know if they are telling the truth or trying to play a game with someone.

BTW -- I've read almost all of Ann Rule's books and Criminal Minds is one of my favorite shows!!

I don't think they're defending Terri in any way -- I think they're defending their investigation, making sure everyone knows they aren't the source for comments in the press and such. It's important later down the road, should a trial occur, that LE isn't accused of making untoward comments during the investigation.

 

[BeanE]

Didn't they also say the same in answering the written questions last week? Sorry, I don't have that link handy (BeanE- can you help me out with this?).

As I understand it, LE has not said that Terri failed her poly(s); we are only hearing this from others. Also, there are the LE statements after past KH and DY press conferences that (paraphrasing) "these statements do not come from LE," which KH and DY confirmed in their audio interview last night.

These two things together, does make me think that LE may be defending Terri, or at the very least, trying to discount what KH and DY are saying.

Why? Well, I don't know if they are telling the truth or trying to play a game with someone.

BTW -- I've read almost all of Ann Rule's books and Criminal Minds is one of my favorite shows!!

Hmmmm.... yes it was in the written Q&A:

Of what value is a polygraph test to investigators, if the results are not admissible in a prosecution?
• It is an investigative tool.


http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=1276&alert=1

God I hope that's not all they were doing. Slightly rewording the written Q&A and saying it out loud.

ETA: This may be an entirely unnecessary thread. Don't anybody tell Kim or Gram. :angel:

 

[21merc7]

Not useless BeanE.

Well, I had a bunch of stuff typed, but it went poof.

Ok. I think LE had to make some sort of statement with all the allegations and hub bub about it. Lie detectors are not usable in Court and for many good reasons. LE never said anyone passed, failed, messed up, or walked out.

LE is saying if any or all did any of those things it does not make them a suspect. Wonder if all failed? Lol! :crazy:

 

[daisy7]

I don't think they're defending Terri in any way -- I think they're defending their investigation, making sure everyone knows they aren't the source for comments in the press and such. It's important later down the road, should a trial occur, that LE isn't accused of making untoward comments during the investigation.

IF the comments are true, then I'm not sure how LE being the source for them would have any impact on a future trial?

And, if they are trying to tell people they are not the source for the comments, does this mean the comments aren't true?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hmmmm.... yes it was in the written Q&A:

Of what value is a polygraph test to investigators, if the results are not admissible in a prosecution?
• It is an investigative tool.


http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=1276&alert=1

God I hope that's not all they were doing. Slightly rewording the written Q&A and saying it out loud.

ETA: This may be an entirely unnecessary thread. Don't anybody tell Kim or Gram. :angel:

I think that's what they were doing--reiterating that the failed polygraph is not "evidence," just an investigative tool that they might use to decide who or what to investigate more fully.

 

[eyes4crime]

Gosh, I had to google what investigative tools LE might use. I found things like - special underwater cameras, digital cameras, and cameras that zoom in on dust particles for footprints, DNA, gun and bullet expertise, blood spatter etc.. Social networks, polylights, special lights, and chemicals. Computer forensics. etc.....

Other than social sites that present certain problems with credibility, most of the other CSI tools are admissible in court. Specialists in all areas can be called as witnesses - except poligraphers. Right? To be honest, I can't imagine why LE would throw polygraphs in with the tools used for investigating. IMO only - they are worthless!!! all just my opinion

 

[Emma Peel]

In Haleigh's case they've been telling us that polygraphs are just an investigative tool forever. Everyone's failed them in Haleigh's case. Some (Misty comes to mind) keep taking them like they're a GED or something, hoping with each try to pass one. They even find kind souls to pay for independent ones so they can impress LE, but ... they even fail those. LOLOLOL.

Anyway, I'm really posting to say, LE always says a polygraph is merely an investigative too. They've said it before in this case too.

Polygraphs don't clear people. Evidence accounting for time & whereabouts, and actual clear alibis is what clears people. Conversely, polygraphs don't convict people either. Evidence does. And polygraphs are not admissible evidence.

...still trying to count Misty's polygraphs... I seen 3 ... at least 3....

 

[Sherbie]

Gosh, I had to google what investigative tools LE might use. I found things like - special underwater cameras, digital cameras, and cameras that zoom in on dust particles for footprints, DNA, gun and bullet expertise, blood spatter etc.. Social networks, polylights, special lights, and chemicals. Computer forensics. etc.....

Other than social sites that present certain problems with credibility, most of the other CSI tools are admissible in court. Specialists in all areas can be called as witnesses - except poligraphers. Right? To be honest, I can't imagine why LE would throw polygraphs in with the tools used for investigating. IMO only - they are worthless!!! all just my opinion

I think in some instances it's a means of measuring someone's willingness to cooperate, gauging their body language and reactions to being asked to take a LDT, etc. That can be of value in itself, aside from the actual results of a LDT.

In the right hands (that being key), they are pretty reliable. I know a lot of people don't put any stock in them, but I think they can be very useful for LE to help confirm they're on the right track or give them pause to look in another direction. But they're definitely not a be-all, end-all tool.