Lie Detector Tests & Corruption: A public figure speaks out

[gardeness]

It's hard for me to fathom a scenario in which a teacher would be in trouble for mentioning a child had a doctor's appointment, or how mentioning an appointment would be an egregious violation of privacy. I agree that it's unnecessary and inappropriate to discuss the details of a doctor's visit, but merely mentioning that a child was going to the doctor as a reason for a litigation?

Really? Wow. I'm one of those that thinks our overly litigious society has contributed to the destruction of much in our country, though. In that way, I, too, am biased.

It sounds to me as if the volunteer was in the classroom, in the capacity of an assistant or aide--she was working *with* the children. Just as a teacher's assistant or aide, or a substitute teacher would be informed of what is going on with a student, a volunteer in this capacity would also be informed. moo

 

[Aedrys]

BBM

Isn't that the standard everyone is applying to Terri, though?

Absolutely not. Trying to hire someone to kill her husband, sexting right after her stepson goes missing, getting batphones for private conversations away from LE, hiring a top notch defense lawyer way way way before she's ever made a POI or charged/arrested for what happened to Kyron (and she still hasn't), and not being able to pass the muster with LE about her alibi suggests that's she unbalanced, morally corrupt, and could have possibly have done something bad to Kyron.

But that is vastly different then getting up in arms over a teacher not saying what they should have said to a child student. Terri has made herself look bad with no help whatsoever. The teacher, in my opinion, made a split second decision on a chaotic day to tell this one kid that Kyron was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink of water, something anybody might do to calm down a child or reassure them. How is that such a bad thing? How does this in any way make the teacher just as bad or worse than TH and what she's done so far? That's comparing apples to oranges. I think the teacher probably regrets it and wishes she said or did something else. There's no way that there's a perfect script that everyone should follow, and if they don't, then they are damned for it.

But making bad life decisions over and over again with no regret or remorse is not the same thing. Terri should have learned and done better by now. Instead, it's the same old, same old, and logically, that tells us that there is something significantly wrong there, so wrong that it MIGHT have lead to something bad happening to a child. We know all about TH's history. We know almost nothing about this teacher. I'm more likely to give the teacher the benefit of the doubt than crucify that teacher for one bad decision on a chaotic day. That's not fair at all.

And getting back on topic, the lie detectors are just a further indication, albeit one that can't be used in a court of law, to show that Terri is continuing in her line of bad decisions and habits. She thought she could hoodwink LE and failed to do so after two and half tries. The lie detector is only a tool to point LE in the right direction, kind like a compass. But both are not always accurate, and can be broken or give misdirection. I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket based on just the lie detectors. They are just an addition to everything else, all of which adds up to guilt to me. All MOO, of course.

 

[eyes4crime]

Please allow me to refer back to the OP and my post with questions.

The spirit and intent of this thread involves those 2 components, the desire to look at the elements in a fresh way, and the desire to do so using critical thinking.

Here's a link to that:

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm

An out-take:

"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or
problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking
by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them.
The Result

A well cultivated critical thinker:

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and[/FONT]
  [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]precisely;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to[/FONT]
  [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]interpret it effectively,[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, [/FONT]
  [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.[/FONT] "

By its very nature, CT demands that we ask hard questions, and also, as the saying goes "think outside the box."

As do, IMHO, common sense and logic.

Let me try to respond to your beautifully written and well thought out post Kat. :blowkiss:

In order for me to exercise critical thinking skills there has to a piece or two of factual information in the nucleus from which to build. Otherwise, I would be creating something out of nothing...right?

I've either lost my critical thinking skills in this case or there isn't enough for me to build upon.

Let's face it - if I believe Terri is guilty based on information not yet released or info held close to the vest, how would I know what to critically analyze?

If I believe Terri is guilty because she is the last person to be seen with Kyron and then I find out LE are looking for a 3rd party parked in the lot - what do I analyze? Last person, 3rd party, both, or throw the possibility out?

ETA: How can I analyze the polygraph results - it detects blood pressure, pulse, and changes in the autonomic nervous system, it has nothing to do with detecting lies...I would need a Forensic Physiologist for that one.

To save my sanity, until a fact or two is released, I've decided focus on and analyze the validity of polygraphs! :yes:

All just my opinions and stuff like that!

 

[Kat010]

It's hard for me to fathom a scenario in which a teacher would be in trouble for mentioning a child had a doctor's appointment, or how mentioning an appointment would be an egregious violation of privacy. I agree that it's unnecessary and inappropriate to discuss the details of a doctor's visit, but merely mentioning that a child was going to the doctor as a reason for a litigation?

Really? Wow. I'm one of those that thinks our overly litigious society has contributed to the destruction of much in our country, though. In that way, I, too, am biased.

Me, too. Let's say Coach Jones has an open orientation session available for those who might want to try out for the "x" team. Bobby Smith, who's been very enthusiastic, doesn't show up. Coach, later in office, says "Gee, I was surprised not to see Bobby at the orientation session, he was so enthusiastic. Wonder what happened."

Reply: "I know but I can't tell you."

It's JMO, but heck, even in workplaces you call in sick. You don't have to say, "hey, I'm home with syphilis" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) but you do have to, in most places, verify use of sick leave vs. vacation leave.

Meanwhile, where's Kyron?

 

[gardeness]

Saying someone is going to the doctor is a "medical detail".

Not to belabor this, we all have our own opinions, and are entitled to those. I don't mean to say your opinion, or anyone elses for that matter is wrong, and mine is right. For me, it's right.
I find it highly invasive for anyone to discuss other's health issues without an absolute need to know, for either performing interventions, or to be aware of potential problems.
Again, that's just me and my opinion. Some people have no qualms about thier business being discussed with others, me...I guess I'm more of the Howard Hughes type, and cherish my privacy.

Well, I do disagree, and that's okay! I taught in Texas, and I wouldn't have been sued for mentioning that a child left early for a dr. appointment.

 

[gardeness]

Me, too. Let's say Coach Jones has an open orientation session available for those who might want to try out for the "x" team. Bobby Smith, who's been very enthusiastic, doesn't show up. Coach, later in office, says "Gee, I was surprised not to see Bobby at the orientation session, he was so enthusiastic. Wonder what happened."

Reply: "I know but I can't tell you."

It's JMO, but heck, even in workplaces you call in sick. You don't have to say, "hey, I'm home with syphilis" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) but you do have to, in most places, verify use of sick leave vs. vacation leave.

Meanwhile, where's Kyron?

Well, also--dr. appointments are excused absences. Doctors also issue "doctors notes" for children returning to school...

 

[Kat010]

Let me try to respond to your beautifully written and well thought out post Kat. :blowkiss:

In order for me to exercise critical thinking skills there has to a piece or two of factual information in the nucleus from which to build. Otherwise, I would be creating something out of nothing...right?

I've either lost my critical thinking skills in this case or there isn't enough for me to build upon.

Let's face it - if I believe Terri is guilty based on information not yet released or info held close to the vest, how would I know what to critically analyze?

If I believe Terri is guilty because she is the last person to be seen with Kyron and then I find out LE are looking for a 3rd party parked in the lot - what do I analyze? Last person, 3rd party, both, or throw the possibility out?

To save my sanity, until a fact or two is released, I've decided focus on and analyze the validity of polygraphs! :yes:

All just my opinions and stuff like that!

Bingo!

And thank you!

 

[Kat010]

The Oregonian just published a new article that ties into this thread perfectly:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/kyron_horman_divorce_case_cast.html

Here's one brief out-take:

"Stuart Slotnick, a managing partner in New York for the criminal defense litigation firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and a former prosecutor who works alongside his father and well-known defense attorney Barry Slotnick, said usually law enforcement closely restricts the flow of information in an ongoing investigation so it doesn't hamper the inquiry.

"If they have evidence the stepmother was responsible for the disappearance, then they need to make an arrest," Slotnick said. "I would say a public relations campaign against a potential target is inappropriate, and likely counterproductive if in fact this is being orchestrated by the prosecution. If this is in fact happening, to overbear someone with bad press, it's not a conventional strategy.""

 

[gardeness]

The Oregonian just published a new article that ties into this thread perfectly:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/kyron_horman_divorce_case_cast.html

Here's one brief out-take:

"Stuart Slotnick, a managing partner in New York for the criminal defense litigation firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and a former prosecutor who works alongside his father and well-known defense attorney Barry Slotnick, said usually law enforcement closely restricts the flow of information in an ongoing investigation so it doesn't hamper the inquiry.

"If they have evidence the stepmother was responsible for the disappearance, then they need to make an arrest," Slotnick said. "I would say a public relations campaign against a potential target is inappropriate, and likely counterproductive if in fact this is being orchestrated by the prosecution. If this is in fact happening, to overbear someone with bad press, it's not a conventional strategy.""

I had mentioned in a comment a few weeks ago that if Terri is innocent, KH and DY have set a precedence for future parents of missing children, and those parents might not get the air-time KH and DY have benefited from. It just seems so risky...

I have wondered who is behind it--is it the prosecution? Is it Tony? Is it LE? How will we know?

 

[GrainneDhu]

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.

SBM & BBM

First, 1Chump, I wish I had some magical way to take away your guilt; there aren't words for how painful that all sounds. I'm so sorry that happened to you.

The bolded part addresses my own question: is it even possible for the subconscious mind to reason from the person's own definition to another person's (quite different) definition?

I really, really doubt that it works that way. Anyone who wants to experiment with it, try taking one or more of the implicit association tests at:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

These tests measure the test taker's emotional positive or negative association with various concepts (race, fat vs thin, etc). The interesting thing is that it doesn't matter what your philosophical convictions about the issue are; it measures what your unconscious associations are. Which can be very different from your philosophical convictions.

I can think of two friends right now, one who failed a polygraph falsely and one who passed a polygraph falsely.

The friend who failed had been accused of assaulting a man in an empty residence hall corridor. No witnesses to the beginning of the incident, it was just he said, she said. A witness did hear something in the corridor and came out of his dorm room to check it out. That witness saw a small woman (my friend) literally bouncing off a wall, as if she had been shoved violently or thrown against the wall. The man claimed my friend initiated an assault and that he "pushed her away" in self defence.

The man showed the police a faint mark on his skin that he claimed came from her fingernails; she kept her fingernails extremely short because she had a job in a biology lab where contamination of cultures was always a concern. He was over 6 feet tall and weighed something like 200 pounds; she was 4 foot 10 inches tall and weighed 85 pounds. He had several previous arrests for various kinds of assault (but no convictions), she had no previous arrests at all.

The police asked each of them to take a polygraph. He passed, she failed. The police decided not to file any charges anyway because the evidence was so flimsy and the chief witness so unbelievable.

I am convinced that my friend did not suddenly assault a man over a foot taller and over 100 pounds heavier than she. She was not violent, she was very into nonviolence as a philosophy (this was the early 1980s) and my friend was not crazy.

She said the officer that administered the polygraph said he thought she failed because after the incident, she was scared and angry; she had some fantasies and vivid dreams about physically harming the man (who she claimed initiated the assault from start to finish). Just asking her about the incident was enough to trigger a visible reaction (she would flush, her pupils would contract, etc).

I have a friend who has to take periodic polygraphs as part of his job. He has passed each time, including the questions about illegal drugs (his job does not involve driving or operating heavy machinery, unless you count a calculator as heavy machinery). I know that he has an interesting life outside of work and that it includes frequent experiences with recreational substances.

And yet he passes the polygraph each time. He sincerely and honestly feels that his off work activities are none of his employer's business and that as all of his job evaluations have been outstanding, whatever he chooses to do outside of work is clearly not affecting his performance.

And my last thought is this: for thousands of years, humans have tried to understand emotional responses. Without much success but leaving a lot of great art and literature as evidence of the attempt.

I am completely unconvinced that a machine can do better in understanding emotional responses than, say, someone like William Shakespeare.

 

[wondering1]

The Oregonian just published a new article that ties into this thread perfectly:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/kyron_horman_divorce_case_cast.html

Here's one brief out-take:

"Stuart Slotnick, a managing partner in New York for the criminal defense litigation firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and a former prosecutor who works alongside his father and well-known defense attorney Barry Slotnick, said usually law enforcement closely restricts the flow of information in an ongoing investigation so it doesn't hamper the inquiry.

"If they have evidence the stepmother was responsible for the disappearance, then they need to make an arrest," Slotnick said. "I would say a public relations campaign against a potential target is inappropriate, and likely counterproductive if in fact this is being orchestrated by the prosecution. If this is in fact happening, to overbear someone with bad press, it's not a conventional strategy.""

You do know who Barry Slotnick is, right? Well-known is more like infamous. I grew up in the tri-state area and remember his name very clearly. He was known as the "mob lawyer" and was defense counsel for John Gotti (the mafia king-pin) and Bernhard Goetz (the subway shooter). Basically, he's the east coast equivalent of OJ's attorneys. I'm guessing he passed his legacy on to his son, and that even Houze can only aspire to his level of infamy. I found this article, which is sums it up, imo.

It starts out with Slotnick telling the reporter he doesn't smoke -- while smoking right in front of him. Then he says, "Are you going to believe your eyes or what I tell you?"

Here's another snippet on his mindset in defending Goetz:

What about Darrell Cabey, the most seriously wounded of the youths, who was permanently paralyzed? Cabey was lying on the floor when Goetz came over to him and reportedly said, "You don't look so bad, here's another," then fired a bullet into his back. That follow-up attack is expected to present serious difficulties for the defense. Does Slotnick think of Cabey?

"I have to think of him as the I contend he is, a mugger who got what he deserves," says Slotnick. "When it's over, I'll reflect on him as a human being."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096202,00.html

 

[eyes4crime]

The Oregonian just published a new article that ties into this thread perfectly:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/kyron_horman_divorce_case_cast.html

Here's one brief out-take:

"Stuart Slotnick, a managing partner in New York for the criminal defense litigation firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and a former prosecutor who works alongside his father and well-known defense attorney Barry Slotnick, said usually law enforcement closely restricts the flow of information in an ongoing investigation so it doesn't hamper the inquiry.

"If they have evidence the stepmother was responsible for the disappearance, then they need to make an arrest," Slotnick said. "I would say a public relations campaign against a potential target is inappropriate, and likely counterproductive if in fact this is being orchestrated by the prosecution. If this is in fact happening, to overbear someone with bad press, it's not a conventional strategy.""

I don't know if Terri is guilty or not, but if she is - how terrible if she walked due to a technicality...or even worse, that the Constitutional rights afforded to her such as an 'impartial jury' is considered by the judge as unobtainable. Case thrown out! Yikes There goes any justice for Kyron! moo

 

[GrainneDhu]

LDT: how many cases do we know about where they've been wrong?

SBM

Depending on the study you look at, the accuracy rate of polygraphs is anywhere between 55% (barely better than flipping a coin) and close to 100%.

The various polygraph schools, which just may have an invested interest in the results, are the ones claiming near 100% accuracy results.

One survey of 420 psychologists gave an accuracy rate of 61%. That's better than chance, yes, but it's nothing I'd be bragging about.

Then Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed in 2004 that the accuracy rate of polygraphs was 85%. His remarks were made in the context of the Wen Ho Lee case, where the federal judge and the president of the United States tendered apologies to Dr Lee and the government ponied up a multi-million dollar settlement. Much of the case against Dr Lee was the polygraph that he took (a condition of his employment at Los Alamos) and failed. I think it would be fair to say that Ashcroft had serious motivation to over-state the accuracy of polygraphs (he was defending the FBI's role in the Lee case).

 

[stmarysmead]

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.

"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."



I think clarification about the above comment would help refocus this thread. I will admit I have read every comment in the context of the one above.

What EXACTLY is meant in the quote above? I need help understanding it.

What is the "glaring missing element?"

Is it that LE has deliberately created a "witch-hunt" toward Terri to distract from someone connected to the "financial power circles" of the area?

WOW!

Does this assert that LE should be investigated because their focus on Terri is so bogus, it must be corrupt?

Just who in the financial/power circles might police be "covering" for...and what basis is there to suspect that?

I do agree with later posts that we have every right and obligation to ask questions...and that asking questions does not mean disrespect.

But these sentences and words seem to me to be more than questioning techniques or the reliability of lie detectors. This is questioning whether the entire investigation has been a deliberate fraud..or to use a word in the original post...a "cover-up." Because I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth...I'm just posting how these words seemed to me...so if others took this meaning, we have a chance to better understand.

Do some here believe that police are deliberately sidetracking this investigation, endangering school children, and undermining the investigation to find Kyron...in order to protect certain powerful people or politicians?

WOW again!

Quote:

"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."

Are some calling for, "yearning for"... the police to be investigated?

Is the "glaring, missing element"...corruption.... to cover up for "financial/power circles?"

I'd like to better understand THIS part of the thread commentary...because this is pretty serious IMO. Along with words like "witch-hunt" and "cover-up"...these words seem to infer something about police motives. If any of the LE working on this case..read here...what do these words mean about their characters, their integrity, their true motivations? What "glaring missing element" suggests they have not been doing their jobs to the best of their ability with every honest intent?

I understand many feel protective of Terri's reputation. Let me just say, I feel protective of the hard-working men and women on that police force as well. If they come here to this Board, what do these words and sentences mean?

I hope I am misreading this...entirely possible...but others might too.

Are some calling for, "yearning for"... the police to be investigated?

Is the "glaring, missing element"...corruption!!.... to cover up for "financial/power circles?"

 

[PaulaF513]

I do not feel personally insulted by looking at different opinions. I love WS for the differing perspectives. It makes me think! But I do find the repeated references to witch hunts and lynch mobs an inference that those of us who believe TH is guilty are part of one, instead of basing our beliefs on logic. And yes, that feels like an insult to my intelligence.

Please do not take offense, but can you tell me why you think TH is guilty and of what? Dollars to donuts your reasons will not be evidentiary but moral ones. There is not one scintilla of true evidence that has been released in this case, that indicates TH is guilty for whatever has befallen little Kyron.

There has been a plethora of innuendo tossed around; cell phone pings, bank records, mfh plots, sexting, even the possibility of a lesbian relationship have been debated ad nauseum along with white truck sightings (or not). Her personal past has been analyzed and it's been established that she is a money-hungry, sex crazy, domineering, sociopath who cannot put her masters degree to use in her profession.

But what true evidence exists that she is guilty.

What makes people suspect her?

Unfortunately for her, she "vented" about failing a polygraph to her family and they saw fit to share that with the news media.

 

[Herding Cats]

Yes--that's what I was thinking, too. They would know the entire school--even the basement... Someone could have been planning and waiting for the opportunity...

Totally OT, but how awful would it be to find Kyron on 8/29, during this clean-up?

Sigh.

Best-
Herding Cats

 

[stmarysmead]

Please do not take offense, but can you tell me why you think TH is guilty and of what? Dollars to donuts your reasons will not be evidentiary but moral ones. There is not one scintilla of true evidence that has been released in this case, that indicates TH is guilty for whatever has befallen little Kyron.

There has been a plethora of innuendo tossed around; cell phone pings, bank records, mfh plots, sexting, even the possibility of a lesbian relationship have been debated ad nauseum along with white truck sightings (or not). Her personal past has been analyzed and it's been established that she is a money-hungry, sex crazy, domineering, sociopath who cannot put her masters degree to use in her profession.

But what true evidence exists that she is guilty.

What makes people suspect her?

Unfortunately for her, she "vented" about failing a polygraph to her family and they saw fit to share that with the news media.

To me, the fact that both LE and her husband found the Murder-For-Hire allegation credible is huge. The "morality stuff" and her past become vastly different if we can believe... that both her husband and the police believe...this is a woman who tried to hire someone TO KILL.

I don't even like to abbreviate this with "MFH"...somehow that diminishes it. Terri has been accused by a witness of the chilling act of MURDER FOR HIRE.

This is not just a naughty woman next door. The capacity to think of paying to cause a death to solve one's problems...is hopefully possessed by only a very slim minority of people.

It would seem that LE and her husband believe Terri is in that minority.

I assume that those who support Terri dismiss the Murder-for-Hire. The police seemingly don't dismiss it, and Kaine does not...I think that is very important.

Why don't they dismiss it?

Until they do...why should I? When and if that story is completely discredited...if nothing else but what we know now is revealed...then I could be convinced to view Terri differently.

 

[Steely Dan]

Here are some thoughts after reading this far in the thread;

There seems to be a lot of opportunity for a LDT to be inaccurate. Yet somehow, it seems, they are fairly accurate. I guess we don't hear too much about when they are wrong.

To quote (approx.) George Constanza - It's not a lie if you believe it.

A guy I know was stealing from customers at his job (Pumping gas at a gas station. That should tell you how long ago this was.) and the business brought in a LDT administrator to test everybody about some things. (Nothing related to him or anything specific at that branch. I think it was just routine.) Anyhoo, after administering the LDT the administrator came out and looked at the manager and said; "That is the most honest person I've ever polygraphed."

It turns out that when asked a question he'd cop to the smallest offense. (i.e. Q: "Have you ever stolen while at work?" A: Yes, sometimes when it's really hot and I forgot to bring money with me I'll take a coke from the cooler.")

For those who say that TH would have been arrested by now if they knew she had something to do with KH's disappearance, I disagree. I have seen many, many true crime shows where the police knew who did it but lacked a solid case. It wasn't until several months or years later that the final piece of evidence necessary was acquired. Proving something outside of and inside of court can be different things.

How many people here believe DP killed SP? Yet the police haven't charged him. IMO, a good DA will not take a case to trial unless they are positive they can get a conviction.

Oregon doesn't have sunshine laws so we really don't know and probably won't know, until there is a trial, what they have.

I often think too much is read into what people have said in certain situations. Somebody mentioned above that they called for their daughter days after she'd left to visit her dad. I've said things and done things that some could misinterpret, and have misinterpreted, to my detriment but were completely innocent. I think that's probably true of almost everybody here.

JMO

 

[CathyinTexas]

I've thought a lot about that part - why the teacher would dismiss the child's noting that Kyron was gone, and say what she said. My thinking is that she is under no obligation to tell a fellow second grade student where another student is. For all we know, the child may have been a challenge as far as staying on task, in which case, the best strategy would be to say something quick and simple, and then redirect him to continue on his worksheet, for example. Or maybe she just didn't want to explain to a child what the story was because it wasn't all that clear to her. I don't know if that implicates the teacher or not, but I wouldn't call a child's word gospel in that situation. On a normal day, it wouldn't have been an important moment, and I can totally see a harried teacher blowing off the full truth in response to an inquisitive child. JMO.

Didn't she say this to an adult also? I thought a volunteer or substitute pointed out that one child was missing. I know from our experience with schools in our state of Texas that schools routinely lie and cover up the truth out of fear of a lawsuit. In a case like this, I am sure they would do anything to deflect from their liability. Teachers know this and are afraid to speak their mind on any subject, if the school administrators want to be dishonest about an incident or matter.

 

[CathyinTexas]

If they "knew" it was Terri she would have been arrested by now IMO.

Read on the innocence Project. Read the stories about people who have spent years in prison only to be found innocent. Why? Because LE had tunnel vision and in some cases built a case around that tunnel vision. Some of the stories are heartbreaking.

In a case such as this you can never have tunnel vision. At this point Terri's life has been ruined and if she is not guilty God help those who helped spread rumors and those that had their 15 mins of fame.

IMO

I noticed that the talking heads on shows that cover crimes in the news are on the blame Terri band wagon. They are also now blaming DS. I admit that I think there is a slight chance that she did have something to do with Kyron's disappearance, but only slight at this time. I have been suspicious of KH also, but only slightly. I think this was a stranger abduction, and hope he is alive like a few others we know of.