|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 4, 2007 1:58:40 GMT -5
Articles from 1941 are not necessarily sound information either. The technology hasn't changed since then. They've merely added a computer to make it look more impressive.
|
|
|
Post by mactheknife on Jan 4, 2007 2:40:46 GMT -5
The fact that anyone guilty or innocent would likely agree to a polygraph initially especially with first interview with police. That would not help me much if i were juror. If lie detectors are just shy of 50% accuracy then why in the world do they even exist? I am trying to be objective here. Articles from 1941 are not necessarily sound information either. I think Scott's appeals would be better served disregarding this lie detector information. The jurors did not get to hear anything about a LDT. It was redacted from the transcript of the interview at the trial.
|
|
|
Post by cloudyskies on Feb 20, 2007 13:37:56 GMT -5
Does anyone remember if Scott was ever offered a deal before the bodies were found?
TIA
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Feb 20, 2007 13:47:17 GMT -5
Does anyone remember if Scott was ever offered a deal before the bodies were found? TIA There was a suggestion that they would take the DP off the table if he told them where the bodies were. Since he didn't know, no such 'deal' was possible.
|
|
|
Post by cloudyskies on Feb 20, 2007 15:06:25 GMT -5
Does anyone remember if Scott was ever offered a deal before the bodies were found? TIA There was a suggestion that they would take the DP off the table if he told them where the bodies were. Since he didn't know, no such 'deal' was possible. Thank you happyhaddock! I was watching a special yesterday on police interrogations. It was quite interesting how some LE use tactics to get innocent people to "confess". I started thinking about Scott and could not remember whether or not they tried to get him to confess. I guess they couldn't do that type of "interview" because Scott retained an Atty. immediately plus Amber was more than willing to help out. ;D
|
|
|
Post by guest4life on Feb 20, 2007 22:58:46 GMT -5
I have never understood the importance of a polygraph, and why some prosecutors and LE insist on people, especially family members, taking them. What good would it be when a person is naturally going to be emotional anyway? It seems like it would defeat the purpose. I can see advising an outsider who is suspected of a crime, but not a member of the family. I had to take a polygraph years ago as a requirement for a job I had just been given, checker in a supermarket. I was scared to death! I'm sure the tester took that into consideration, but at the time I remember that my heart was racing, and I was shaking, it unnerved me so much. I cannot imagine anyone who has just lost a loved one, being able to undergo one with any degree of accuracy. Maybe the reason it is no longer called a lie detector test, is that it can't detect lies most of the time! You don't say whether you passed or failed this test. If you passed, then your nervousness didn't mask the fact that you were telling the truth. A polygrapher will do "test" questions that he or she knows you are telling the truth about (your name and birth date) and use those results as markers to compare to other questions that have unknown answers (have you ever stolen from an employer?, etc.). I would be very worried about taking one, too - if I knew I was suspected of a crime. I would take one anyway - because they can't be used against you - they can only work in your favor. If you pass, it puts you further down on the list of suspects. If you fail - well, you're already a suspect and already being investigated, and this can't be used in court against you. We often hear of people having an "inconclusive" result, who are later cleared, but I've never heard of someone who flat-out failed a polygraph who was later found to be completely innocent. Not saying this never happened - I've just never heard of it.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Feb 20, 2007 23:21:31 GMT -5
You don't say whether you passed or failed this test. If you passed, then your nervousness didn't mask the fact that you were telling the truth. A polygrapher will do "test" questions that he or she knows you are telling the truth about (your name and birth date) and use those results as markers to compare to other questions that have unknown answers (have you ever stolen from an employer?, etc.). I would be very worried about taking one, too - if I knew I was suspected of a crime. I would take one anyway - because they can't be used against you - they can only work in your favor. If you pass, it puts you further down on the list of suspects. If you fail - well, you're already a suspect and already being investigated, and this can't be used in court against you. We often hear of people having an "inconclusive" result, who are later cleared, but I've never heard of someone who flat-out failed a polygraph who was later found to be completely innocent. Not saying this never happened - I've just never heard of it. If you fail, the police trumpet this as 'proof' of guilt. If you pass, they tell everyone the test was 'inconclusive'. Once they have you in their sights this 'test' will not help you. Ask yourself why Brocchini was so desperate to sabotage an independent test - one whose results he could not alter?
|
|
|
Post by guest4life on Feb 20, 2007 23:54:01 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by "trumpeted". I watch all the national shows that cover current investigations, and I have never, in my entire life, heard LE announce that someone has failed a polygraph test. They say "no comment" or "inconclusive", or nothing at all.
It all comes out in the end - after the trial - but I have never heard LE announce "inconclusive" and then we later find out that the person passed.
The only thing I have ever heard them "trumpet" or announce, is when someone refuses to take one at all. They don't talk about the results publicly until after the trial.
If you remember, OJ took and failed a private LE test, but the info didn't come out about it until well after the trial.
I don't know why Brocchini did what he did - let Scott see him that day; or if he did it accidently or on purpose.
I don't understand why Scott didn't just go ahead and take the private test, though. Brocchini wouldn't have been allowed to enter the building, and wouldn't have been allowed to see the results unless Scott gave permission to release them. The private company's policies wouldn't have even enabled them to tell LE whether or not Scott had even taken the test.
It was a win-win situation for Scott.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Feb 21, 2007 13:18:08 GMT -5
... I don't understand why Scott didn't just go ahead and take the private test, though. ... Scott had no interest in taking the test. He knew he wasn't involved, so why bother? What he wanted was to get Frey to take the test so he could find out for sure if she was involved. When she blew the test off and Brocchini turned up instead he must have been sure she was involved somehow or was working for the cops.
|
|
lolli
New Arrival
Posts: 9
|
Post by lolli on Feb 21, 2007 18:36:18 GMT -5
on the topic of "nothing in the interview to show guilt" I have read and re-read the transcrips of the calls between Amber and Scott and still cannot find even ONE thing he said that would incriminate him at all? you'd think after all that he would have somehow slipped up a bit but he never did. And, he didnt even know he was being taped?? if he did he would be even more specific on what he did say to throw them off. I just think something would have been said after all that, even with Amber purposely trying to get him to admit to something? He was very adament in saying he had nothing to do with it. This has always bothered me.
|
|
|
Post by guest4life on Feb 21, 2007 23:35:32 GMT -5
... I don't understand why Scott didn't just go ahead and take the private test, though. ... Scott had no interest in taking the test. He knew he wasn't involved, so why bother? What he wanted was to get Frey to take the test so he could find out for sure if she was involved. When she blew the test off and Brocchini turned up instead he must have been sure she was involved somehow or was working for the cops. Why bother? To pass it and get LE looking in other directions. How could Scott have thought that Amber was involved? If she had something to do with it, Scott would have known that his cover had been blown, and that Amber knew he was lying about being away at Christmas. She would have had to spy on his house and wait for him to leave that day. If he thought that she knew he was lying about everything, why would he keep lying and pretending to be in Brussels a few days after Christmas? Lying about where he was, while at the same time trying to convince her that he wasn't a liar? I don't understand. What would the conversations that Scott had with Amber have brought out? He never asked her any questions about where she was that day. When it got to the point where the truth came out, he never wanted to talk to Amber about it. He wanted to talk about himself and Amber, and read her poetry. It was always Amber who was bringing up Laci. I can thinking that he's innocent, but his actions didn't help him much. I believe that his attorney told him both to not take a LE test, and to stop seeing and talking to Amber. Why did he listen to his attorney about the one thing, but not the other?
|
|
|
Post by guest4life on Feb 21, 2007 23:42:43 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by "trumpeted". I watch all the national shows that cover current investigations, and I have never, in my entire life, heard LE announce that someone has failed a polygraph test. They say "no comment" or "inconclusive", or nothing at all. It all comes out in the end - after the trial - but I have never heard LE announce "inconclusive" and then we later find out that the person passed. The only thing I have ever heard them "trumpet" or announce, is when someone refuses to take one at all. They don't talk about the results publicly until after the trial. If you remember, OJ took and failed a private LE test, but the info didn't come out about it until well after the trial. I don't know why Brocchini did what he did - let Scott see him that day; or if he did it accidently or on purpose. I don't understand why Scott didn't just go ahead and take the private test, though. Brocchini wouldn't have been allowed to enter the building, and wouldn't have been allowed to see the results unless Scott gave permission to release them. The private company's policies wouldn't have even enabled them to tell LE whether or not Scott had even taken the test. It was a win-win situation for Scott. Imagine making an agreement with someone, and you don't really think that person is talking to anyone else, and then you find out the person you privately made the agreement with, has been talking to the police about you. Do you just smile and keep your end of the agreement, or do you get mad and walk away? Me, I know I would walk away, as would most people. Why should he have played Amber's game? If my loved ones were missing, I wouldn't be able to work up any interest in what someone I had dated on the side thought about anything. What that person thought would be the last thing on my mind, and the last thing I would care about. It wouldn't be about getting involved in anyone's game - it would be about doing what was best for the investigation. Complaints were made that LE was spending more time focusing on Scott than on looking for Laci. Take the test and get them off your back and looking in other directions, then. That's what I would do.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Feb 22, 2007 2:41:42 GMT -5
If my loved ones were missing, I wouldn't be able to work up any interest in what someone I had dated on the side thought about anything. What that person thought would be the last thing on my mind, and the last thing I would care about. It wouldn't be about getting involved in anyone's game - it would be about doing what was best for the investigation. Complaints were made that LE was spending more time focusing on Scott than on looking for Laci. Take the test and get them off your back and looking in other directions, then. That's what I would do. He was ready to do that until his lawyer explained what a very bad idea that was. However he was prepared to go ahead IF he could get Frey to take the test as well since he could not otherwise eliminate the possibility that she was somehow involved in his wife's abduction.
|
|
|
Post by guest4life on Feb 22, 2007 11:36:55 GMT -5
I don't understand what you're saying.
According to Scott, his attorney told him within days of Laci going missing, not to take a LE test.
If Scott had wanted to clear himself through a private LD test, he could have arranged that through his attorney and not had Amber involved in any way. No one would have had to know the results, unless they were positive.
Amber had already taken and passed a law enforcement LD test, and now was prepared to take another, private one.
But why would what Amber did or didn't do have anything to do with Scott's decision to take, or not take, one?
He should have tried to help himself, instead of putting so much emphasis on Amber. Amber should have had no effect on any of Scott's decisions concerning his missing wife.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Feb 22, 2007 14:16:16 GMT -5
... He should have tried to help himself, instead of putting so much emphasis on Amber. Amber should have had no effect on any of Scott's decisions concerning his missing wife. Scott was, is and always has been innocent. That is certain beyond any doubt. What Scott wanted to do was to see if Frey was innocent also. To this day we don't know that and Brocchini made sure we couldn't find out, so the umbrella of suspicion still hangs over her, as it does over so many others.
|
|