CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excuse for 'Deceptive' Conclusion on Polygraph? A Precedent?

@ChuckMaureen :) Thanks for your post. I hope this addresses your question more directly than some of the earlier responses. If not, feel free to reword your question, so we try to better respond.

1) You 'could claim' all you want over and over, for hours or days on end.
Whom are you going to tell - LE questioning/interviewing you?
2) Precedent?* A term usu applied by a court in rendering a decision, not to LE interrogations.
@Twistinginthewind provided info re research of effect of sleep deprivation on PGT subjects. Your no-sleep claim does not obligate LE to conclude that sleep deprivation is the cause of 'deceptive' results and that research does not mean you are entitled to a second PGT. LE is not precluded from believing you were being deceptive in your answers and can continue its investigation of you as a POI or suspect, and w sufficient evidence, you can be arrested, indicted, etc. No precedent in legal sense.
3) More importantly: Information re your having taken a PGT and the results are not admissible as evd in court, so not a factor in DA/Prosecutor trying to prove your guilt in the crime charged. IOW, if you have a perfectly legit, science-backed, peer-reviewed, research-supported reason for 'flunking' PGT, so what? Not going to be admitted in evidence.
jmo, could be wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------
* Precedent legal definition of precedent - Legal Dictionary
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent
Precedent. A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases. The Anglo-American common-law tradition is built on the doctrine of Stare Decisis ("stand by decided matters"), which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it.

Thanks, @al66pine. Even though @ChuckMaureen was being facetious, this is useful info.

Now if I could only pronounce your username...

MOO
 
Of course, but that isn't my point. :cool:
From the beginning I thought it was very strange that RT would tell the media that he he was considered the "prime suspect," and that his polygraph had indicated deception.
It's very unusual that anyone would reveal this information, especially if they were somehow involved.

I've never heard of a case where a potential suspect deliberately led the media to believe they may have been involved. Why deliberately point the finger at oneself? Very strange. Imo
 
Ah, but maybe he paid for it...

Arizona is a community property state. All monies gained after marriage belong to both. Keep in mind that Barbara was the original property owner whose condo purchase parlayed them both into ever nicer houses (she gets to retain that prior purchase; so she has that plus her half of all their equity).

So, I suspect that the relatively miniscule amount spent on airfare (even if she flew First Class) was nothing compared to the 5th Wheel (which she never got to enjoy) and the truck. He had a phone, she didn't. I say she gets to use some of their joint money however she wants.
 
What day did he take the polygraph? He was kept inside LEs car for 4 to 5 hours being questioned after tracking back looking for BT after hiking, plus his age, he could have been mentally exhausted if it was on the day she went missing.

He stated that he was out there until they made him leave, searching day and night. In order for him to be "sleepless," the polygraph had to happen after at least one night. I do not think they administered it on Saturday, in the desert. Since RT states on camera that he failed and that is aired on the next Tuesday, he took the test between Saturday morning (unlikely - and no right-minded professional polygrapher would do it in the middle of the night after his wife went missing). I doubt it was done on Saturday.

Since ABC needed to get the tape prior to airing it, they must have had it by noon on Tuesday (and, more likely, by Monday afternoon). At any rate, those are the parameters. The lie detector test took place approximately between Sunday morning (which means LE really wanted it done quickly, to call in someone on the weekend) and Tuesday morning (which means RT ran from that test home to Bullhead City in order to meet a reporter who was going to file the piece in just a couple of hours - really unlikely).

So I think it was Monday.
 
From the beginning I thought it was very strange that RT would tell the media that he he was considered the "prime suspect," and that his polygraph had indicated deception.
It's very unusual that anyone would reveal this information, especially if they were somehow involved.

I've never heard of a case where a potential suspect deliberately led the media to believe they may have been involved. Why deliberately point the finger at oneself? Very strange. Imo
Lisa Irwin case.

The mother of a 10-month-old girl who went missing from their Kansas City home said police told her she failed a lie detector test and accused her of being involved in her baby’s disappearance.

Lisa Irwin Missing: Deborah Bradley, Mother, Says Missouri Police Blame Her For Baby's Disappearance | HuffPost
 
My post was of the 'facetious' variety. I was being coy in attempting to make a point at which, it seems, I was quite unsuccessful in implementing.
@ChuckMaureen :)Thanks for ^ post.

No thanks for your orig & subsequent posts on your no-sleep-excuse/PGT topic. Facetious? Coy? Maybe some here immediately recognized them as such and ignored.
Not speaking for other members who responded, but I thought about your posts and answered earnestly. Appears some others did as well.
Back on topic to BT.
 
I understand we can't really discuss this tremendously in depth as it comes dangerously close to "sleuthing", but am I the only person who wonders how RT specifically came to the conclusion that sleepless nights can mess up a polygraph? Was it information he already knew; and if so, how? Was it information he was given by a lawyer or similar? I mean, it's news to me, so that's the primary reason why I'm wondering.
 
I understand we can't really discuss this tremendously in depth as it comes dangerously close to "sleuthing", but am I the only person who wonders how RT specifically came to the conclusion that sleepless nights can mess up a polygraph? Was it information he already knew; and if so, how? Was it information he was given by a lawyer or similar? I mean, it's news to me, so that's the primary reason why I'm wondering.
maybe it's just the only thing he could think of in his defence as he was genuinely tired and could not explain otherwise the results from the test. maybe he was actually lying during the test, and maybe he wasn't.
MOO
 
Polygraph results are an interesting science. There is a very good reason they are inadmissible in court.

They are a tool to obtain data about bodily functions that is then analyzed to determine whether there were changes to said functions in response to external stimuli (questions). In order to accurately use polygraph data you need to establish a baseline, something to compare against. This is typically obtained by inputting stimuli that are answered by common facts. Then, when you input more relevant stimuli, you have something to compare the data against. When you attempt to establish a baseline in situations that aren't the norm for said subject, any one of those monitored functions is likely to be different than it usually is, as such can be the response to stimuli.

That being said, anything that can cause definite abnormalities in a polygraph result should be looked into, but with a fair amount of scrutiny as there is some sort of physiological response triggering it - put pinpointing the causation of that response is where the science-y lines blur. Sorrow, Fear, Anger, Frustration, Confusion, Stress are all some general emotions that can cause skewed results.
 
Last edited:
AZ & Community Property? Pre-Nuptial Agreement?
Arizona is a community property state. All monies gained after marriage belong to both. Keep in mind that Barbara was the original property owner whose condo purchase parlayed them both into ever nicer houses (she gets to retain that prior purchase; so she has that plus her half of all their equity)....
@10ofRods :) Thanks for your post. sbm bbm BT was original prop owner of condo? Before or after marriage? I missed it or am behind. Anybody have a link?
A 69 y/o & a 72(?) y/o married for ~ 15 yrs, each of them previously married one or more times and ea w adult children from previous relationships, is it possible or likely they have a pre-nuptial agreement?
If so, the (hypothetical) PreNup ---
- may govern property division in event of (hypothetical) divorce.

- may provide for certain distribution of property on (eventual) death of H or W or both.
Or this could also be achieved by establishing a trust and registering/ titling properties, accounts, assets in trust name.
jmo, possibilities.
 
Last edited:
@ChuckMaureen :)Thanks for ^ post.

No thanks for your orig & subsequent posts on your no-sleep-excuse/PGT topic. Facetious? Coy? Maybe some here immediately recognized them as such and ignored.
Not speaking for other members who responded, but I thought about your posts and answered earnestly. Appears some others did as well.
Back on topic to BT.
I 'liked' your response. Since we are not permitted to sleuth victims, being facetious and coy are methods which I attempt to utilize to suggest an opinion which might indicate a victim is not a 'victim', that a 'victim' who is not might be playing a game of manipulation or setting up scenarios intended to CYA should said 'victim' be found out down the road.

My concern is someone may get away with being involved in something heinous and it pains me that justice might not ever be properly and thoroughly served.

I hope I'm wrong in holding certain opinions but either way, BT is missing and that is the first focus of our sleuthing attempts and I expect no one in this forum wants the guilty to go free and the innocent to suffer unjustly.
 
I would never subject my family to the scrutiny of social media, nor in this specific case would I offer a reward.
The media are not going to find BT.

As a family, I would be contacting SAR groups, in an effort to organize searches once the weather permits/cools.
Instead of a reward, I would be offering a donation to those SAR groups that would be of assistance in searching for BT.
I would try and coordinate those SAR efforts, as this is a recovery from the limited information we have.
Well, the VI has made a request for a drone search, but we don't know yet what LE's response to that was.

I would think it would be helpful if it's possible. There has been success in finding bodies in other cases, so I think it would be worth it to try. Imo
 
I understand we can't really discuss this tremendously in depth as it comes dangerously close to "sleuthing", but am I the only person who wonders how RT specifically came to the conclusion that sleepless nights can mess up a polygraph? Was it information he already knew; and if so, how? Was it information he was given by a lawyer or similar? I mean, it's news to me, so that's the primary reason why I'm wondering.
Maybe he learned it from LE.
Maybe he told them he was exhausted and asked if it would affect the results, and they said, "It's possible." Imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
835
Total visitors
937

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,758
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top