Oy Poor Roy Moore

[Berzerker]

I'll trust his John Hancock on the victim's yearbook

[-Jrabbit]

Agreed. Insert Kid's rise in blood pressure here: ____/____

[Kidlicious]

Not evidence of anything except maybe that he signed year yearbook.

[Berzerker]

In 1998, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote that "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable." (The case was about whether polygraph evidence should be admissible in military court.)

[Kidlicious]

Dude, you signed the yearbook... He sure aint goin down without a fight... The courts dont recognize lie detector tests because they're unreliable - some liars can pass them because they're so used to lying their bodies dont trigger the machine. I'd bet Trump could pass a test. I remember a funny scene from Barney Miller, Sgt Dietrich (the nerdy cool guy with the glasses) took and passed a test while claiming he was born on another planet. Given differences in people some liars can appear truthful and some truth tellers can look guilty. I think, I'd be interested to know which group has the most false positives.

Anyway, lie detector tests are a tool. They can help but I wouldn't depend on them. I assume they're better than 50/50 or even the CIA wouldn't use them, but what happens when the women pass their tests? I gotta hand it to him, that took some balls. But at this point he aint got much to lose, redemption from a machine or the disgrace he's already experiencing. I thought one of his victims offered to take a test, maybe I'm wrong on that.

Don't ignore evidence. This is real evidence, not a forged yearbook signature. In this case a preponderance of the evidence is the standard.

[Kidlicious]

In 1998, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote that "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable." (The case was about whether polygraph evidence should be admissible in military court.)

This is not military court. The standard is preponderance of the evidence.

[self biased]

This is not military court. The standard is preponderance of the evidence.

except polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence in the overwhelming majority of court cases.

link

[Kidlicious]

except polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence in the overwhelming majority of court cases.

link

Again, not a court case.

That doesn’t mean a lie detector is something to laugh about. But understanding how it works may make you more comfortable and thus less likely to get a false positive.

Even if the test isn’t used in court, it can still be used by police during questioning. If that happens to you, make sure to have an experienced criminal lawyer present to make sure there’s no funny business.

[-Jrabbit]

This is not real evidence. Nor is it a court case. It's Roy Moore waving a piece of paper and claiming that an undocumented, unwitnessed polygraph clears him.

And interestingly, he only claims it clears him of knowing 3 of the women who came forward. It's every bit as laughable as when he told Hannity 'I did not date young girls' and then went on to say 'I always got their mother's permission.'

BTW, based on how late his lawsuit was filed and how quickly it was slapped down by a Republican judge, Moore's lawyers are either incompetent, or just milking him for billable hours.

[Kidlicious]

This is not real evidence. Nor is it a court case. It's Roy Moore waving a piece of paper and claiming that an undocumented, unwitnessed polygraph clears him.

And interestingly, he only claims it clears him of knowing 3 of the women who came forward. It's every bit as laughable as when he told Hannity 'I did not date young girls' and then went on to say 'I always got their mother's permission.'

BTW, based on how late his lawsuit was filed and how quickly it was slapped down by a Republican judge, Moore's lawyers are either incompetent, or just milking him for billable hours.

Only TWO women accused him of crimes. TWO! Get that threw your liberal head so that you can have a normal conversation.

THIS IS NOT COURT! Roy Moore does not show physiological signs of lying. That IS evidence.

[-Jrabbit]

Why you continue to defend this loser is beyond me. All I cared about was the election, and that matter is settled.

[Kidlicious]

I know how you hate facts

[Ming]

Gee... if lie detector tests were totally fool proof, we wouldn't need juries. But guess what.
We need juries and real evidence.
Unless you are Kidiot... a true sheeple.

[rah]

If it isn't court than this is just all about public opinion. So it seems that it has had no impact. Those that believed him before (Kid) still do. Those that did not (most of the rest of us here) still do not.
So it really isn't evidence of anything. All it shows is that Roy signed a piece of paper claiming he took a polygraph. To be honest, if an independent third part had administered it and came forward it would have given it more weight in my book.

[Kidlicious]

If it isn't court than this is just all about public opinion. So it seems that it has had no impact. Those that believed him before (Kid) still do. Those that did not (most of the rest of us here) still do not.
So it really isn't evidence of anything. All it shows is that Roy signed a piece of paper claiming he took a polygraph. To be honest, if an independent third part had administered it and came forward it would have given it more weight in my book.

No. People like you don't care about evidence, that the accused shows no physiological signs of lying.

[Kidlicious]

Gee... if lie detector tests were totally fool proof, we wouldn't need juries. But guess what.
We need juries and real evidence.
Unless you are Kidiot... a true sheeple.

This has got nothing to do with juries. It is just up to you to be honest and reasonable.

[rah]

I don't consider it evidence (as I plainly stated) All we have is a statement that he signed. How is that any different from his original claims.
Again, if it was an independent third party that had administered the test and reported on it, i would have given it more weight.

Imagine a crime boss showing up at his trial and handing a note to the judge that said he passed a lie detector test so he was innocent which has to be true since he signed it. I don't think the judge would cancel the trial.

[Ming]

No. People like you don't care about evidence, that the accused shows no physiological signs of lying.

And to you... that is evidence...


Typical Sheeple

[Kidlicious]

I don't consider it evidence (as I plainly stated) All we have is a statement that he signed. How is that any different from his original claims.
Again, if it was an independent third party that had administered the test and reported on it, i would have given it more weight.

Imagine a crime boss showing up at his trial and handing a note to the judge that said he passed a lie detector test so he was innocent which has to be true since he signed it. I don't think the judge would cancel the trial.

Do you know what an affidavit is?