1114 users online (243 members and 871 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 227
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766

    Lie Detector Tests & Corruption: A public figure speaks out

    Here's a very interesting personal commentary on lie detector tests:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...earch_for.html

    It was written by Fred Leonhardt, who I researched and found this:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/leonhardt11012006.html

    He struggled to reveal the truth about the rape of a 14-year-old babysitter by Neil Goldschmidt, Oregon's former governor. And the protection afforded him by the power brokers and elite.

    For further information, see the Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of this shameful situation by Nigel Jaquiss of the Willamette Week:

    http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2005-I...tive-Reporting

    ETA/I just (4:39 p.m.) edited the title of the thread to better reflect the total discussion.
    Last edited by Kat010; 08-21-2010 at 05:40 PM. Reason: removed "rape" as he admitted to the "relationship"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766
    Now, some personal commentary.

    From the get-go, I've been troubled by not only LE's insistence that nobody had anything else to worry about, and their sole focus on TH, but also by the soft-pedaling of what happened at the school that day.

    It's seemed as though anyone who can help prove any of TH's allegations is blown off, or disregarded, including Kyron's little friend who steadfastly said he saw KH after TH left. And then there's the volunteer (AKA the "substitute") who listened and told the regular teacher that Kyron was missing only to be told that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a dirnk.

    Lots of focus has been applied to whether or not TH told the teacher--"yelling across the room"--that Kyron had a dr's appointment. In point of fact, that's a red herring and bogus, IMHO.

    Why? Had TH, who had, according to Kyron's friend, already left, done so, the teacher *would* have replied "Not to worry, his mom brought him to the science fair but then she had to take him for a dr's appt."

    That's simple timeline and logic.

    There's been a solid rush to focus on TH and anyone, apparently, who liked her, or had anything to do with her. There's been a focus on smearing her and making sure that any and all leaks, and comments from other extended family members get fulll play.

    As a former investigative reporter myself, there's one thing that I'm yearning to know, and it relates to who's connected to whom in the financial/power circles of that area. So far, I have not seen one reporter jump on what is to me, the most glaring missing element in this case, one that might explain why LE has notoriously assured a community of as-yet unproven safety for their children while also leading, IMHO, a lynch mob toward one person only.

    In the end, TH might have done it. But then again, a pedophile might have done it.

    The only thing we know at this point is: LE sure as heck doesn't know enough to make a solid case that will stand up in court. But they sure as heck were fast to reassure their community of something they can't prove to this day--and the entire situation has been muffled in a decided sidetracking from what really happened at school that day.

    Let's face it, when they didn't even get to the groundskeeper before putting out that "white truck" flyer, LE revealed that they didn't do their basic homework. But, according to them, all's well with kiddies returning to school, as they've said from the start.

    There's a history of cover-ups in that area, which is something I've long suspected. There's a history of bending things for political advantage, also not a surprise.

    This post goes to the validity of what led Leonhardt to raise heck about the former governor, which then led to his experience with lie detectors.

    Sometimes the most valuable lie detector we have is asking: what's being swept under the rug and why? Lie detector tests aren't admissable in court for darned good reasons.

    But common sense always finds a way in--unless it's deliberately blocked.

    IMHO.
    Last edited by Kat010; 08-21-2010 at 05:23 PM. Reason: hit button too fast!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Left Coast USA
    Posts
    8,843
    This isn't exactly what you are talking about but, I have been bothered by the reporting of the OregonLive reporter, Maxine Bernstein, I think her name is. She seems too cozy with the DA's office, the police, the sheriffs, etc. It seems that she is in a position to really find out some stuff, but she doesn't. She seems to just regurgitate what she is fed. imo. — i.b.
    Last edited by i.b.nora; 08-21-2010 at 06:26 PM. Reason: corrected reporters name

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Midwest now OC forever
    Posts
    798
    IMO, this is a much better discussion of how LDT's work. This is a discussion fromn JVM on May 19, 2010 in another case regarding a difference of views between the LDT analyst who administered the test and a former FBI profiler who criticized the way the test was done because the questions were too vague. BTW, the very next night another former FBI criminal profiler criticized the Analyst also. I'm just copying the pertitent parts of the transcript regarding the LDT results only.

    IMO, This makes it very clear that LDT analysts set the guy up to "fail." LE uses it as an "investigative" tool. If they believe you are guilty, the last thing they want you to do is pass So they either lie and tell you that you failed. Or they set you up to fail so they can then use your failure to try to pressure you into confessing.


    ******Video Clip

    DR. PHIL MCGRAW, TV HOST: Two relevant questions, are you responsible for Julie`s disappearance? And did you cause Julie`s disappearance during the month of March?

    He answered no to both of those, and it came back that that was deceptive.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you do?

    GEORGE DE LA CRUZ, JULIE ANN GONZALEZ`S HUSBAND: I didn`t do nothing. I didn`t do anything. I just felt that I should have stopped her.

    MCGRAW: Jack feels that he knew what the question was about and that he`s not telling the truth here.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please tell the truth.

    DE LA CRUZ: I did tell the truth. I don`t know nothing.
    ************
    VELEZ-MITCHELL: More questions than answers tonight about this case. Are police any closer to finding Julie?

    I want to welcome my fantastic panel. Criminal profiler Pat Brown, again author of the new book "The Profiler". You`ve got to check it out. Jack Trimarco, polygraph examiner with us tonight. He is the gentleman who administered the test to George de la Cruz. We`re delighted to have you sir.

    ************

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: George`s attorney told us, quote, "Obviously polygraphs are not admissible in court because they are not reliable. My client has complied from the beginning. He had nothing to do with the disappearance of his wife."

    Jack, you`re the man who administered the polygraph. It is possible that lingering guilt over his broken marriage, guilt over allowing Julie to walk out that day, that those feelings could have caused George to fail on these two questions: "Are you responsible for her disappearance? And did you cause her disappearance?"

    JAMES TRIMARCO, POLYGRAPH EXAMINER: No, the short answer to that, Jane, is no. The questions were formulated to get to the heart of the question, and that is responsibility. The term responsibility and disappearance were both explained to him, which he said he understood explicitly.

    And what he`s doing is he`s throwing me a bone. He wanted me to be happy with this bone that he felt some type of responsibility because he did not let her stay with him and that he should have protected her. Well, that`s not at all what was going on in that life.

    That having been said, it was a wonderful two-hour polygraph test that came to the right conclusion despite what his defense attorney might say.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: And what is the conclusion that you came to?

    TRIMARCO: That he was deceptive to the relevant issue of having been responsible for Julie`s disappearance.

    **************
    ....
    VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have to ask you a question Pat Brown, criminal profiler. When George was on our show ISSUES and he sat there and the family was also on the show and he talked and talked, a lot of us said well, you know he doesn`t seemed guilty to us because he`s so talkative and he`s open about it and he`s showing up on our show and willing to answer questions.

    What do you make of that?

    PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, he either thinks he`s in a big reality show and he`s very arrogant and thinks it`s funny and he`s going to get away with it because he obviously is a good person of interest or he really is innocent.

    And I want to mention the polygraph here, I`m not happy with those two questions. I`m sorry. Those are the kind of questions I don`t think should be there. They are vague questions, he could be responsible in some way, he could have felt it caused in some way. Why didn`t they just ask the question, did you kill your wife? Did you dump her body?

    SOTO: Exactly.

    BROWN: You can`t blow those.

    TRIMARCO: Well, let me respond to that.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Jack. Yes.

    TRIMARCO: Let me respond to that. Pat, I respect your abilities as a profiler, as I am also a retired profiler, but my duties in this case was as a polygraph examiner. So far be it from me to criticize your profiling skills.

    My -- the reason we didn`t ask George if he killed his wife is, because we don`t know that she`s dead.

    BROWN: Yes, but if you asked him that he can either say yes or no and it`ll be a simple answer. If he didn`t have anything to do with her disappearance or death --

    TRIMARCO: We don`t know that she`s dead and so that`s --

    BROWN: It doesn`t matter.

    TRIMARCO: -- an inappropriate issue.

    It does -- it does matter. She`s disappearing, she`s disappeared. She`s not around. And so --

    BROWN: If he did something to her --

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on, one at a time.

    JAMES TRIMARCO, POLYGRAPH EXAMINER: We don`t know if she`s alive or if she`s dead.

    BROWN: If he did something, she`s dead. That`s a simple reality. If he did something, she`s dead.

    TRIMARCO: You stick to profiling and I`ll stick to polygraph.
    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. One at a time.

    BROWN: Ok.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Listen, I want to get both of your sides of the story but the viewers have told us they can`t understand anybody when both people are talking at once.

    All right. I think it`s a fascinating question and, you know, I have to wonder and give you something to think about for the other side of the break, let`s say some of the other big, famous suspects, would we ask them that question? On the other side.

    **************
    TRIMARCO: Jane, I would. Before we started crossing professional lines there, I wanted to say that the first series of questions had to do with responsibility for her disappearance which were both disappearance and responsibility were defined to my satisfaction by George. He understood what those terms meant.

    He failed the exam. He admitted that he had responsibility. He said it was out of guilt. He said he knew the polygraph worked, and at that point, Dr. Phil and I asked him if he would then take a second test with the question, did you kill Julie? And he said he wouldn`t take that test.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, let me just say a couple of things. One, he is not considered a suspect or even a person of interest. He has not been charged with anything and certainly he deserves the presumption of innocence.

    *******

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m going to given you last word, Pat Brown. We do have to give him the presumption of innocence. 30 seconds.

    BROWN: Well, he certainly does have issues obviously with his ex there. He should be a person of interest. No question about it. But I`m going to say, still, the polygraph was not adequate in my opinion to make a decision on. So no. That`s why it doesn`t go in court.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...9/ijvm.01.html

    ************

    I found this discussion interesting because iof what the LDT analyst is saying and what George is saying, it is not hard to understand why George would fail the polygragh.

    The LDT guy says several times that he explained to DeLaCruz what the LDT's analyst's definitions of disappearance and responsibility were and that DeLaCruz understood those definitions to the LDT's analysts satisfaction.

    DeLaCruz says he did tell the truth but the LDT analysts says he answered deceptively.

    My question is whose truth did DeLaCruz tell? Did DeLaCruz answer truthfully according to the LDT analyst's definitions? Just because DeLaCruz may have understood the LDT analyst's definitions of disappearance and responsibility, does make those defintions his truth, his belief. So do you answer truthfully according to what they tell you is the truth when you do not believe it to be true or do you answer according to your truth.

    If DeLaCruz answered truthfully according to his truth, he would have made himself look guilty because it might have showed he was telling the truth. "Are you responsible for Julie's disappearance?" Yes - truth. No way this LDT analyst would let him explain. So either way DeLaCruz was in trouble by taking this LDT.

    The LDT analyst told us that he would not have let DeLaCruz explain his answer to the question:

    "And what he`s doing is he`s throwing me a bone. He wanted me to be happy with this bone that he felt some type of responsibility because he did not let her stay with him and that he should have protected her"

    The LDT analyst discounted DeLaCruz's explanation because DeLaCruz's defintion of responsibility was not the LDT analysts. DeLaCruz did not believe what he was answering truthfully because he had a different definition of the terms so it showed deception.

    Finally, I know that I had absolutely no responsibility in the death of the love of my life. He did from a staph infection at a hospital after a bone marrow transplant. He did not tell me he was going into the hospital. He wanted to protect me. He told me he had to go away for a few months, we could not have any contact but he would explain when he got back. He did not come back. Instead I got a call that he had died. Logically I knew there was nothing I could do but emotionally, I had severe survivors guilt. If only I had been with him, my love could have pulled him through. If a LDT analyst asked me if I had any responsibility in his death, I would fail. Because if I said "no" the answer I know is the logical truth, I would most definitely fail because I felt guilty/responsible. If I answered "yes" my truth, I would fail because the analyst would know it was not true.

    IMO, anyone who talks a LDT is playing russian roulette. Because your truth does not matter....the only truth that matters is the one they have decided before they ever hooked you up for the test.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    36
    You have to imagine that the school district is working hard to ensure that they are not found liable in any of this - having a young child taken from your school would create community hysteria. We haven't heard about any leaks to suggest they are not cooperating in any way, but they are definitely in cover their rear-end modes right now -that is a given.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766
    From the totally excellent WW Pulitzer-winning coverage:

    "You could argue that I had an ethical responsibility to do something," says Multnomah County Sheriff Bernie Giusto, one of those who knew Goldschmidt's secret. "But other people had better information than I had and never acted."

    ...

    " Giusto acknowledged that he had learned the story about Goldschmidt and the young girl but did not say exactly when or how.

    Giusto didn't report the information to his superiors, he testified, because he believed the statute of limitations had expired. (Law-enforcement officials say he was correct.)

    Giusto argued he had no duty to pursue further information because there was no evidence that Goldschmidt represented a danger to other children. "In my two years with him, I never saw anything that led me to believe that there were other victims," Giusto said.

    In a follow-up interview, Giusto maintained that had he alerted superiors, he might have smeared Goldschmidt unjustly. "It would have been unethical for me to have opened an investigation," Giusto explained. "My only obligation was to make sure there were no other victims around--it was not to quit or confront him."

    Yep, that's the top cop talking there.

    I guess he believed that the community was "safe" too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,229
    The problem with the things you've said about what was said to the teacher, what the little friend said, and anyone that can help prove any of Th's allegations is blown off. As of yet I have not seen it reported as to what LE has for statements from the parent's, students or staff who were at the school that day, not from the media or LE. We don't know what the teacher said to LE, we don't know what any of the parents said to LE and we don't even know what TP's statement was to LE.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766
    Wow.

    That was some post about JVM and the LDT.

    I've actually been through a session on LDTs and how they work. Here's the bottom line:

    They are so variable. Here are factors to consider:

    1. Who's performing the test--their credentials, both public and the back room stuff that id's consultants of all ilk who tend to support LE or defense.

    2. Exactly what questions are asked.

    3. Exactly what wording is used.

    4. The order in which questions are asked.

    5. The interpretation, which then includes variables such as understanding of terms--and this includes cultural differences as well. Yes, the little squiggly lines might show "inconclusive" or "deceptive" but the *reason* that they do may lie in factors other than the truthfulness of the subject on the precise issue being investigated.

    LE and the media like to make a big deal about someone who refuses to take a lie detector test (and gee whiz, somehow results always get leaked, doncha know??!!). However, taking a lie detector test is fraught with many perils, especially if LE is looking to prove only one single hypothesis and if you're the hypothesis they're after.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Kat010 View Post
    Now, some personal commentary.

    From the get-go, I've been troubled by not only LE's insistence that nobody had anything else to worry about, and their sole focus on TH, but also by the soft-pedaling of what happened at the school that day.

    It's seemed as though anyone who can help prove any of TH's allegations is blown off, or disregarded, including Kyron's little friend who steadfastly said he saw KH after TH left. And then there's the volunteer (AKA the "substitute") who listened and told the regular teacher that Kyron was missing only to be told that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a dirnk.

    Lots of focus has been applied to whether or not TH told the teacher--"yelling across the room"--that Kyron had a dr's appointment. In point of fact, that's a red herring and bogus, IMHO.

    Why? Had TH, who had, according to Kyron's friend, already left, done so, the teacher *would* have replied "Not to worry, his mom brought him to the science fair but then she had to take him for a dr's appt."

    That's simple timeline and logic.

    There's been a solid rush to focus on TH and anyone, apparently, who liked her, or had anything to do with her. There's been a focus on smearing her and making sure that any and all leaks, and comments from other extended family members get fulll play.

    As a former investigative reporter myself, there's one thing that I'm yearning to know, and it relates to who's connected to whom in the financial/power circles of that area. So far, I have not seen one reporter jump on what is to me, the most glaring missing element in this case, one that might explain why LE has notoriously assured a community of as-yet unproven safety for their children while also leading, IMHO, a lynch mob toward one person only.

    In the end, TH might have done it. But then again, a pedophile might have done it.

    The only thing we know at this point is: LE sure as heck doesn't know enough to make a solid case that will stand up in court. But they sure as heck were fast to reassure their community of something they can't prove to this day--and the entire situation has been muffled in a decided sidetracking from what really happened at school that day.

    Let's face it, when they didn't even get to the groundskeeper before putting out that "white truck" flyer, LE revealed that they didn't do their basic homework. But, according to them, all's well with kiddies returning to school, as they've said from the start.

    There's a history of cover-ups in that area, which is something I've long suspected. There's a history of bending things for political advantage, also not a surprise.

    This post goes to the validity of what led Leonhardt to raise heck about the former governor, which then led to his experience with lie detectors.

    Sometimes the most valuable lie detector we have is asking: what's being swept under the rug and why? Lie detector tests aren't admissable in court for darned good reasons.

    But common sense always finds a way in--unless it's deliberately blocked.

    IMHO.
    We simply have no evidence that shows these people or incidents were blown off by LE. They could have checked them out thoroughly and drawn conclusions based on their evidence and we just don't know. We have nooooo idea what's being swept under the rug and what's being investigated. It's frustrating for sure, but we the public essentially don't even know what we don't know. You might say.

  10. #10
    BetteDavisEyes's Avatar
    BetteDavisEyes is offline "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    22,178
    Quote Originally Posted by i.b.nora View Post
    This isn't exactly what you are talking about but, I have been bothered by the reporting of the OregonLive reporter, Marilyn Bernstein, I think her name is. She seems too cozy with the DA's office, the police, the sheriffs, etc. It seems that she is in a position to really find out some stuff, but she doesn't. She seems to just regurgitate what she is fed. imo. i.b.
    Maxine Bernstein.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo in Calif View Post
    The problem with the things you've said about what was said to the teacher, what the little friend said, and anyone that can help prove any of Th's allegations is blown off. As of yet I have not seen it reported as to what LE has for statements from the parent's, students or staff who were at the school that day, not from the media or LE. We don't know what the teacher said to LE, we don't know what any of the parents said to LE and we don't even know what TP's statement was to LE.
    There are media reports of what Kyron's friend said, many of them, including videos.

    And why is it that only one account--TH hollering about the dr's appt.--keeps getting attention while any other accounts haven't been "leaked"?

    Just playing devil's advocate here. Bottom line: where's Kyron, and how come we only know loads about TH? And no other possibilities?

    LE is accountable for that. If they had other possibilities, they needed to publicize and discuss those as well. In an entire summer, they haven't.

    The preponderance of the evidence shows that LE has had only one target and one focus. And that evidence has been repeatedly presented by LE itself.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766
    LDT: how many cases do we know about where they've been wrong?

    And is it possible that there's a lot of protection going on for that school and the school system? Just asking.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    2,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Kat010 View Post
    Lots of focus has been applied to whether or not TH told the teacher--"yelling across the room"--that Kyron had a dr's appointment. In point of fact, that's a red herring and bogus, IMHO.

    IMHO.
    Why do you think thats bogus? Terris friend confirmed that there had been a conversation between Terri and the teacher.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Logic Land
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by ami View Post
    We simply have no evidence that shows these people or incidents were blown off by LE. They could have checked them out thoroughly and drawn conclusions based on their evidence and we just don't know. We have nooooo idea what's being swept under the rug and what's being investigated. It's frustrating for sure, but we the public essentially don't even know what we don't know. You might say.
    Ami, exactly--what we are talking about here is the selectivity of the reports that are given and those leaked.

    If that young woman who saw TH in the FMs hadn't talked to a reporter --and she basically supported TH being in the store when she said she was--I wonder if we would ever know about that. Somehow I don't think it would have been leaked. IMHO.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    2,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Kat010 View Post
    There are media reports of what Kyron's friend said, many of them, including videos.

    And why is it that only one account--TH hollering about the dr's appt.--keeps getting attention while any other accounts haven't been "leaked"?

    Just playing devil's advocate here. Bottom line: where's Kyron, and how come we only know loads about TH? And no other possibilities?

    LE is accountable for that. If they had other possibilities, they needed to publicize and discuss those as well. In an entire summer, they haven't.

    The preponderance of the evidence shows that LE has had only one target and one focus. And that evidence has been repeatedly presented by LE itself.
    Maybe because for LE there is no other possibilities and they know they have the right person there investigating in connection with it.

Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Lie detector tests revisited
    By lonetraveler in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 03:54 AM
  2. question about lie detector tests
    By lily in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2006, 08:33 AM

Tags for this Thread