Here's a Question
I will admit my ignorance on this issue. I don't understand why the authorities are so offended by the request that a polygraph test be captured on video.
I refer, of course, to the nation's latest missing woman, one
Jennifer Wilbanks of Georgia. She was to be married to her fiance tomorrow, but went missing while out jogging. Her fiance reported her missing, and of course, he is the chief suspect in the police's view at this time.
Her fiance, John Mason, took an independently administered polygraph and that one was negative (not tying him to the disappearance). The cops want him to take their test - I get
that. But why this:
The fiancé and his lawyer have requested the police polygraph to be videotaped, something Belcher said no law enforcement agency “that’s worth anything” would do. Belcher said negotiations about the polygraph would continue. Mason’s lawyer did not immediately return phone calls to elaborate.
What's the big deal? Maybe
Noble Eagle or
So Cal Lawyer will know...but I sure don't. It seems to me that if the test is fair, performed in the approved manner, that there should be no problem with documenting it. I would think, actually, that it would be done as a matter of course. Why isn't it? Anybody know? I realize that these things are usually unadmissible in court...so what's the damage? Wherein lies the risk?
Somebody, please, enlighten me!
>3 Comments:
At 7:46 PM,
Noble Eagle said...
This whole deal with taking a pre-poly poly test is fishy to me. I've taken a polygraph before, and I didn't need a pre-season warmup game. You just go in and tell the truth. I think their reason for insisting on the video is to make it look like the cops are to blame for the fiance's failure to take the poly. If they did agree to the video, the lawyer can always hire an "expert" to pick apart the police polygraphist's technique at trial if need be. If you're willing to pay enough, you can find an expert who'll testify to anything.
As to the police refusal to allow video, there are two reasons. The official reason and the unofficial reason.
The official reason is that the camera may serve to create reactivity. In other words, the presence of the camera may alter the psychological dynamic of the test and impact the outcome. There is some validity to this.
The unofficial reason is that the police don't want the whole world to see how the tests are done. The polygraph is as much art as it is science. In other words, while the quantities being measured (pulse, respiration, and galvanic skin response) can be quantified, the meaning of the readings relative to the question being asked is highly subjective. False positives are not uncommon. It's also worth noting that spies like Aldrich Ames and Ana Montes passed polygraph tests on multiple occasions, so false negatives are common too.
I think that the fiance should just go ahead and take the polygraph. No one has ever been convicted of a crime solely on the result of a polygraph exam. In most states, the results aren't even admissible in court. If he does show a false positive, the end result would just be to waste the police's time investigating the wrong man. If he refuses to take the test, they'll probably focus their efforts on him anyway.
At 11:55 AM,
Noble Eagle said...
"How about wasting the family's and fiancee's time with what could be a mistaken assumption?"
The police's time is the family's time...assuming they want the missing woman found.
"It's happened before. How much time did the police in Florida waste on investigating Jessica Lundsford's father when the real killer was just down the road?"
We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight on that one. How much time did police in CA "waste" investigating Scott Peterson? When you are conducting an investigation, you have to start with what you already know and work your way outward from there. That means starting the with friends and family and eliminating them as suspects.
"Given that, I can't blame this guy one bit for lawyering up and for refusing to take a polygraph. I'd do the same."
Which would bog down the investigation when every minute counts. I'd have volunteered to take the test right away and cooperated with them in any way possible so the police could move on in their search for my fiancee.
As it turns out, she ran away on her own and was found unharmed. Since it's now obvious that her fiance was not involved, I'm curious as to why he was unwilling to take the poly without video. My best guess was that his lawyer pushed for this, which leads me to believe that his lawyer may have suspected that he was guilty.
Of course it's also possible that the lawyer has serious doubts about the poly. I don't have much faith in "the box" either, but I'd go out of my way to avoid slowing down the investigation into the disappearence of someone I loved.
At 8:20 AM,
said...
" The problem here is the assumption you and law enforcement seem to have about people who decide to protect themselves."
I make no assumptions, I just consider all possibbilities. Making assumptions is a piss poor way to conduct investigations (or so I have always been taught).
"They were trying to make the guy look guilty with his refusal so he'd bend over for them."
I have never been a big fan of using the media too heavily in conducting investigations either. The Richard Jewell case comes to mind when I think of how it sometimes goes awry.
I am also--as I stated in a previous comment--not a big fan of the polygraph. It is often, however, a useful investigative tool. My problem is with departments that use it as a crutch.
"You're innocent until proven guilty."
You have the PRESUMPTION of innocence umtil proven guilty.
"You can't trust the police where I live."
Unless you are the police.
It sounds to me like you have a serious issue with the police. I've dealt with hundreds of cops from about 40 different departments in four different states. It's true there are some schmucks out there, but most of the ones I have met are true professionals.
If the cops where you live are really that bad, push the politicians to make changes. If the entire community gets behind the effort, you can make things happen. If no one is willing to fight for change, then your police aren't your problem, your community is.
<< Home
