15 replies to this topic

[libstaK]

A scottish man convicted of killing his 14 year old girlfriend when he too was 14 has been filmed passing a lie detector test in prison while professing his innocence of the crime.
http://news.ninemsn....e-detector-test

He has professed his innocence from the start and the evidence he was convicted on does not take into account his mother's proclamation that he was with her at the time of the killing.

[libstaK]

On further investigation I have also discovered these links:

DNA evidence casts doubts on conviction:
http://www.guardian....di-jones-appeal

An exerpt:
In April 2004 he was charged with murder. In the absence of any DNA evidence linking Mitchell to the scene, the prosecution case was wholly circumstantial. A witness said she had seen Mitchell – although she failed to pick him out in the courtroom – near the scene of the crime. Jodi's relatives told the court that Mitchell, who claimed he had reacted to his dog barking, had led them straight to the 14-year-old's body during the night search.
The case also centred on Mitchell's character, his supposedly unemotional reaction to Jodi's death and that he carried knives, sold cannabis and was interested in satanism. After the longest trial of a single accused in Scottish legal history, a majority verdict convicted Mitchell and he was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before parole.

and;
Lawyers acting for a teenager who was found guilty of the murder of Jodi Jones, the 14-year-old killed in one of the highest-profile cases in Scotland in recent years, believe they have new DNA evidence that will cast doubt on his conviction.

New Photographic evidence used to launch a new appeal:
http://www.dailyreco...-appeal-1167191

an exerpt:
Campaigner Sandra Lean said: “We have found new photographic evidence that shows one local man linked to the case after the trial bore a remarkable resemblance to Luke.
“Pictures of them both from around the time of the murder have been submitted to show the striking
similarity, particularly in their hairstyles.

[232]

Anyone can falsely pass a polygraph test. Not to mention the possibility of people with mental problems who may believe their lies to be truth.
Not commenting on whether or not this man is innocent, just pointing out how passing a polygraph test says nothing in reality.

[_Only]

232, on 13 January 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

...just pointing out how passing a polygraph test says nothing in reality.

Says nothing to you if they pass it. It definitely says something if they fail.

[232]

No, not really.
That is another issue with polygraphs, false positives can occur far too easily. Essentially only takes someone to be nervous.

There is a reason why they are not admissible in court.

[Timonthy]

_Only, on 13 January 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

Says nothing to you if they pass it. It definitely says something if they fail.

It says nothing if they fail it either. Polygraph tests are not considered reliable.

[_Only]

232, on 13 January 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

No, not really.
That is another issue with polygraphs, false positives can occur far too easily. Essentially only takes someone to be nervous.

The softball questions asked first are supposed to gauge that level, and then a good tester would ease into the big ones, with a good ascent to those questions. I don't think the method is to strap someone in, and ask them if they murdered John Doe, then call it a day. I think you're over emphasizing the minority of occurrences and conditions, trying to make it overshadow the vast majority of situations. These polygraph testers know what they're doing.

[Timonthy]

_Only, on 13 January 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

The softball questions asked first are supposed to gauge that level, and then a good tester would ease into the big ones, with a good ascent to those questions. I don't think the method is to strap someone in, and ask them if they murdered John Doe, then call it a day. I think you're over emphasizing the minority of occurrences and conditions, trying to make it overshadow the vast majority of situations. These polygraph testers know what they're doing.

But still it's not considered reliable and is not used as evidence. It doesn't matter what method is used or how good you think someone might be a gauging the results, it counts for nothing.

[libstaK]

Timonthy, on 13 January 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

But still it's not considered reliable and is not used as evidence. It doesn't matter what method is used or how good you think someone might be a gauging the results, it counts for nothing.

And yet police departments continue to make use of them in their investigations.

[sam12six]

_Only, on 13 January 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

The softball questions asked first are supposed to gauge that level, and then a good tester would ease into the big ones, with a good ascent to those questions. I don't think the method is to strap someone in, and ask them if they murdered John Doe, then call it a day. I think you're over emphasizing the minority of occurrences and conditions, trying to make it overshadow the vast majority of situations. These polygraph testers know what they're doing.

That's what makes them unreliable. They only indicate that someone is reacting to questions, not why they're reacting. The reading of the polygraph is completely subjective and based on the interpretation of the person administering the test. Polygraphs are just a tool to add psychological pressure to someone in the hopes of rattling them into a confession.

libstaK, on 13 January 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

And yet police departments continue to make use of them in their investigations.

Sure they do. They also routinely lie to suspects about having evidence or witnesses they don't actually have in the hopes of tricking them into a confession.

A polygraph is no better than someone who is an expert on body language related to lying and neither is reliable enough for court.

[Rlyeh]

_Only, on 13 January 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

Says nothing to you if they pass it. It definitely says something if they fail.

Innocent people have failed it. It says you're clutching at straws.

[Timonthy]

libstaK, on 13 January 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

And yet police departments continue to make use of them in their investigations.

Doesn't seem right hey... A little backwards.

[Order66]

He's probably comfortable lying, that's why nothing reads. He thinks he has the upper hand in fact, he thinks his interrogators are suckers to put any stock in what he says. If he has no anxiety over killing, why would he have anxiety over lying?

Edited by Order66, 13 January 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[regi]

libstaK, on 13 January 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

And yet police departments continue to make use of them in their investigations.

Indeed! "In their investigations" because that's when a poly is useful. If one declines a poly, that alone could be viewed as suspicious by investigators....they could conclude that the subject might have something to hide, so they look closer at that person.
Also, while a passed poly should never clear it's subject (because it really can't tell us if the subject is actually telling the truth!) a failed result is used by investigators to further pressure a subject during interrogation.
In this case, a poly administered years after the event (any results of which I would think should be viewed as even more unreliable by any poly examiner!) should only be recognized as a defense tactic used to generate public support for the convicted.

This is an interesting case, and I hope to find more info. on it.

[Hilander]

I think convicting someone entirely on circumstantial evidence makes it too likely you will send innocent people to prison.  I would prefer they get the real criminal.

I don't think the polygraph test is reliable enough even for the police to use in an investigation.  Too much room for human error and false results.