How did George pass a lie detector regarding killing Susan Robbins?(ro)
Jim Hill
>The results of a lie detector test are not admissible at trial, but they are
>99% accurate. Even the psychos can't fool these. Does anyone have any ideas
>about how George passed?
Yeah: you're wrong.
If you want the real story on polygraphs, spend a little time reading
the research of David Lykken at the University of Minnesota or John
Furedy at the University of Toronto. www.nopolygraph.com is also a
decent "intro to" website. There's a reason that polygraphs are not
admissible in trials.
>Sigh... this just makes me so sad because I always liked this show so.
Believe me, I'm right alongside you in lamenting the half-assed start
the show has gotten off to this year -- but the fact that a murderer
passed a polygraph is one of the things they've done right.
Jim
--
"Ultimately it is the yearning to believe that anyone can be brought up
to college level that has brought colleges down to everyone's level."
William A. Henry, _In Defense of Elitism_
MJWORKMAN
take a lie detector test before they would represent him in the Susan Robbins
trial. He passed! This was also mentioned prominently when the firm was sued by
Susan Robbins father for their "plan B" tactic in accusing Susan's brother of
this at trial. They argued that George was innocent because he passed a lie
detector test so they were saving the life of an innocent man.
The results of a lie detector test are not admissible at trial, but they are
99% accurate. Even the psychos can't fool these. Does anyone have any ideas
about how George passed?
Of course, George did not expressly admit to Ellinor that he killed Susan
Robbins, only that he stabbed Lindsay. This would, of course, account for him
passing the kie detector. But, it all then becomes even more nonsensical. If
George did not kill Susan Robbins (or presumably anyone else) why did he up and
stab Lindsay? Because he had been called a murderer he just decided he would
become one.Even psychos are more logical than this.
Sigh... this just makes me so sad because I always liked this show so. I am one
of the first who began watching from the first show. David Kelley is either
writing more for mass entertainment appeal because the show has gotten so much
recognition, or he is just stretched too thin and can't produce quality
anymore. Either way it is just a shame.
Userb3
>The results of a lie detector test are not admissible at trial, but they are
>99% accurate. Even the psychos can't fool these. Does anyone have any ideas
>about how George passed?
There is no such thing as a lie detector.Polygraphs measure heart rate,
galvanic skin response, respiration rate, and possibly one or two other
physiological factors. What a polygraphe test comes closest to
measuring is stress. Since most people experience stress when they lie,
the test is accurate much of the time. However, it can also return a
false positive on a subject who is very nervous, or a false negative on
a practiced or compulsive liar.
userb3
--
use...@my-deja.com
<insert witty expression here>
Bob
Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:7u3kof$h...@llama.swcp.com...
> MJWORKMAN wrote:
>
> >The results of a lie detector test are not admissible at trial, but they
are
> >99% accurate. Even the psychos can't fool these. Does anyone have any
ideas
> >about how George passed?
>
>
> If you want the real story on polygraphs, spend a little time reading
> the research of David Lykken at the University of Minnesota or John
> Furedy at the University of Toronto. www.nopolygraph.com is also a
> decent "intro to" website. There's a reason that polygraphs are not
> admissible in trials
I am familiar with some of Lykken's articles. Specifically the articles on
monozygotic twins studies. Though I tend to agree with his assertion
concerning polygraph, his social agenda is more problematic and needs to be
examined much more closely.
Lykken, tends to lean aggressively toward a very authoritarian culture. His
opposition toward polygraphs being used to hire FBI agents is a case in
point. His conclusions may be more Procrustean than objective.
Additionally his support for parental licensing based on his claim:
"One can show that about 70% of-incarcerated delinquents, teenage mothers,
runaways, abused infants and children, and teenage murderers-were reared
without the active participation of their biological fathers. I have been
actively campaigning, through my writings, invited lectures, and the media,
in support of child psychiatrist Jack Western's proposal outlined in his
1994 book, "Licensing Parents."
is very close to fascism.
Taken in context of the monozygotic twin paper he recently published that
clearly indicated that nature beats nurture in child raising, it would seem
he ignores his own conclusions.
Jim Hill
>> the research of David Lykken at the University of Minnesota or John
>> Furedy at the University of Toronto. www.nopolygraph.com is also a
>> decent "intro to" website. There's a reason that polygraphs are not
>> admissible in trials
>
>I am familiar with some of Lykken's articles. Specifically the articles on
>monozygotic twins studies. Though I tend to agree with his assertion
>concerning polygraph, his social agenda is more problematic and needs to be
>examined much more closely.
I'm not concerned with his social agenda. He has done a great deal of
work which concludes that polygraphs don't work much better than
coin-flipping -- and that's the only thing that was germane to this
particular thread.
MJWORKMAN
persuasive. I am an attorney myself, but have nothing to do with criminal law.
(I practice employment discrimination). I have a number of friends who practice
criminal law, however, and all of them give great weight to polygraphs. Even
the prosecutors believe them-- if they receive proof that a criminal defendant
has passed a polygraph they are much more likely not to prosecute, even though
they are not admissible. They simply then believe the individual is not guilty;
almost no criminal defendants pass polygraphs and they know that.
Oddly, an early practice episode dealt with polygraphs. It was only the third
or fourth show. Bobby was representing a woman accused of murdering her married
lover in self defense (she claimed). Bobby became romantically involved with
her. (O.K. so there have always been some cliches on this show). A videotape
came up during trial of the two of them in the hall (the woman and her lover)
which seemed to prove beyond doubt that she could not have acted in self
defense. Bobby was in love with this woman and could not believe she had
deceived him. She had some lame explanation for the videotape. He made her take
a lie detector test with the firm's regular tester (someone he knew well) and
she passed. The trial progressed, and she was acquitted. During the rest of the
trial, however, she did some strange things which made Bobby suspect he had
fallen in love with a psycho. He talked to the man who had given the lie
detector test about her and the man told him that it was only one in a million
who could fool a lie dectector. Bobby seemed to acknowledge that he already
knew this, saying that the firm never questioned the innoncence of a client who
passed a lie detector.
One characteristic of David Kelley's writing is that there is consistency and
an accumulation of experience. So, he and the characters of the show seemed to
be telling the viewers that lie detectors are reliable. Therefore, I still
regard the fact that George passed a lie detector test in connection with the
death of Susan Robbins to be a major plot hole.
Steve
Steve
>I'm not concerned with his social agenda. He has done a great deal of
>work which concludes that polygraphs don't work much better than
>coin-flipping
Yep - see my previous post about 50/50 odds...
Thaddeus L. Olczyk
>
>One characteristic of David Kelley's writing is that there is consistency and
>an accumulation of experience. So, he and the characters of the show seemed to
>be telling the viewers that lie detectors are reliable. Therefore, I still
>regard the fact that George passed a lie detector test in connection with the
>death of Susan Robbins to be a major plot hole.
>
Only if he did kill Susan Robbins.
plothaps
unlike most, I enjoyed the episode, but I admit to being disappointed that Joey
Heric wasn't discovered to have possibly played a part.
If this whole storyline is over, I think it was a mistake to resolve
everything so ... simply. George's involvement could have been resolved in
such a way that we now look to Joey and question what he had to do with it...
Ph
Jim Hill
>My own knowledge concerning polygraphs is anectodotal, but I think it is
>persuasive. I am an attorney myself, but have nothing to do with criminal law.
>(I practice employment discrimination). I have a number of friends who practice
>criminal law, however, and all of them give great weight to polygraphs.
There are different exams that one can give with a polygraph, among them
the directed-lie test and the guilty-knowledge test. However you give
the test, , you are depending on one thing that you know to be true: people
will have different physiological reactions to questions they are asked and
one thing that you _think_ to be true: these different physiological reactions
can be used to determine the veracity of answers to the questions asked.
Many if not most psychologists who have researched polygraphs have
demonstrated that the latter belief is erroneous often enough that
correct identification of a person's honesty/dishonesty is typically not
much better than blind chance.
There are two ways to be wrong with a polygraph: false positives, in
which an innocent person is accused of wrongdoing, and false negatives,
in which a guilty person is assessed as being honest. Given the
likelihood of testing from a pool of honest people versus dishonest
people, the false positive is more likely.
FBI polygraphers typically concede this issue, if pressed. They
continue to call for the use of polygraphs because when you the
polygrapher say to a suspect "The machine says you're lying, you
murdering scumbag" a truly guilty party will often confess. This would
seem to be a vindication of the "technology", except that assessments
of the exam often show that the machine did not in fact indicate
deception. The polygraph is a tool used to lead the fearful and the
ignorant into confessions -- confessions which are admissible in court
though the polygraph results are not. Prosecutors know this, which is
why they want very much to hook people up to their machines.
Also, polygraphers are also law enforcement officers. They have been
present for and have conducted interrogations. From this, they have
obtained a knowledge of "typical" behaviors of guilty and innocent
people who are accused of a crime. Refusal to make eye contact, fixed
eye contact, raised volume when speaking, lowered volume when speaking,
(dis)appearance of a stutter or stammer -- all serve as visual cues
which over the course of a career become a database that allows a
skilled interrogator to assess whether he is being lied to or not. It
is the behavior of the polygraph subject that leads to assessments of
guilt or innocence -- when the polygrapher is not allowed to see the
subject during the examination but is restricted only the printouts from
the various measurement devices attached to the subject, success rates
go through the floor. The logical interpretation of this will surprise
no one: experienced law enforcement officials are better at picking out
when they're liked to than average joes. The conclusion that most law
enforcement personnel like to draw is that their gut feel should be
admissible when it's backed up by a meter.
>Even
>the prosecutors believe them-- if they receive proof that a criminal defendant
>has passed a polygraph they are much more likely not to prosecute, even though
>they are not admissible. They simply then believe the individual is not guilty;
>almost no criminal defendants pass polygraphs and they know that.
Some research indicates that upwards of 20% of suspects who consent to
polygraphs "pass" the test. Are the DAs polygraphing a lot of people
for no reason or are their tests largely inaccurate? It is admittedly
difficult to measure the accuracy of polygraphs; test scenarios do not
carry real world weight, but real world tests are hindered by a lack of
knowledge of the truth.
>One characteristic of David Kelley's writing is that there is consistency and
>an accumulation of experience. So, he and the characters of the show seemed to
>be telling the viewers that lie detectors are reliable. Therefore, I still
>regard the fact that George passed a lie detector test in connection with the
>death of Susan Robbins to be a major plot hole.
This I will grant -- if in the universe of "The Practice" polygraphs are
reliable instruments that are wrongly kept out of court then the fact
that George passed is indeed a plot hole. (Subject of course to the
exception that evaluating the results of a polygraph requires
interpretation of a person's physiological responses to certain
questions and crazy people -- like George -- might not have the same
responses.
Jim Hill
>> I'm not concerned with his social agenda. He has done a great deal of
>> work which concludes that polygraphs don't work much better than
>> particular thread
>
Meaning what, exactly? Come on, don't be shy and dance around the
point. Lay it out for me. Use small words if you feel you have to.
Bob
Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:7u596l$p...@llama.swcp.com...
> Bob wrote:
> >
> >Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> If you want the real story on polygraphs, spend a little time reading
> >> the research of David Lykken at the University of Minnesota or John
> >> Furedy at the University of Toronto. www.nopolygraph.com is also a
> >> decent "intro to" website. There's a reason that polygraphs are not
> >> admissible in trials
> >
> >I am familiar with some of Lykken's articles. Specifically the articles
on
> >monozygotic twins studies. Though I tend to agree with his assertion
> >concerning polygraph, his social agenda is more problematic and needs to
be
> >examined much more closely.
>
Jim K
it seems that if you look or don't look or speak up or don't speak up
you're probably guilty.
On 14 Oct 1999 16:16:54 -0600, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>snipped...
>
>Also, polygraphers are also law enforcement officers. They have been
>present for and have conducted interrogations. From this, they have
>obtained a knowledge of "typical" behaviors of guilty and innocent
>people who are accused of a crime. Refusal to make eye contact, fixed
>eye contact, raised volume when speaking, lowered volume when speaking,
>(dis)appearance of a stutter or stammer -- all serve as visual cues
>which over the course of a career become a database that allows a
>skilled interrogator to assess whether he is being lied to or not.
Jim Kajpust - Personal Responsibility - Personal Freedoms
Michigan - www.concentric.net/~jkajpust