jhony5 said:
Respectfully TJ, you are not getting the point of what I said. You insinuated that the lack of evidence toward an intruder signifies that there was no intruder. My analogy provides you a stunning example of why you are incorrect. I am not likening a child to a bicycle. Please do not dumb it down to that level.
No, it is you who is not getting the point, you are trying to make leaving your tiny children alone in a room where everyone is scared ****less of spontanious fire erupting without warning sound the same as leaving your nike unatended.
They are not the same and the level of responsibility cannot be matched, so your example cannot be considered to anyone with a brain.
jhony5 said:
You did not address the inherent proposition I laid out;
This equates well to the McCann case and the issue you are tauting. That the lack of evidence to indicate an intruder has taken the child somehow means an intruder could not have taken the child. There is evidence;
1) A missing child.
2) Open windows and two unlocked doors.
No, this is nothing like the mccain case, there is a monumental diffefence between the care and responsibility a parent should show for protecting their children from harm compared to caring for a bike.
You do not leave children in harms way if your a good parent.
jhony5 said:
Your statements are in a like context as the old clich?; "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound"? The answer is yes.
No, it is about responsibility. At the very least these parents had a responsibility to keep their defensiveless children safe. You said yourself everyone in that place thought it would explode into flame without notice, why would any parent leave children unattended in a situation liek that?
jhony5 said:
Lots to extrapolate from this, and this is not my "mouth" running TJ. It is well known that lie detectors are faulty. It is also well known that you cannot rehearse for a lie detector session.
Nope, there is plenty of evidence to show they are very accurate, as you said in another post, they are proven to be 98% accurate, the 2% you speak of are chalked up to things like tampering.
Bullets are not 100%. They are less then 75% effective to stop someone with one shot but they are still the best way to defend yourself.
The point I am making is would a geed parent take a 98% chance to help find their missing child?
Your damn right they would, my children are worth a 2% risk.
jhony5 said:
A lie detector measures anxiety. If the circumstances are disingenuous and there is no fear of reprisal for being caught, the anxiety will not be as high, or even present at all. Thusly, the results from a mock run will be inconsequential.
Wrong, the only thing that can make a test ineffective is certain mental conditions and drugs.
A trial run would be very effective for a guilty person because if they fail with the slightly lesser stress of a controled test, they are guranteed to fail during the real thing, and that has been my point from the start, your just pretending not to understand the concept.
jhony5 said:
I know exactly how they work. It is basic stuff. And your above post is a backhanded way of agreeing with me. If the circumstance of the test is not genuine, then the responses will not be genuine. If you do not fear being caught, then your involuntary reactions will be stifled.
Again, you are wrong time and again, a person "always" reacts in an involuntary way to telling a lie, even in a social setting, relaxed and secure. I see people do it almost every day, that is what helps me be so successful at selling stuff, I always know when people are bluffing, so I call their bluff and win every time.
jhony5 said:
I would be far more relaxed if my lawyer was, in essence, administering the test, as opposed to an official and documented test being administered under police supervision.
Again, that is one of the factors for doing a "safe" test. I agree there may be a reduction to the "level" of involuntary reaction to telling a lie in a controlled test, but if you cannot pass that, you are guranteed to fail the test that is for the record.
jhony5 said:
I did not mean to insult you. I apologize if you took it that way. I only meant to convey that I find your appraisal of the authentication of mock tests to be biased and in full disregard of logic.
But your wrong, a person cannot just turn off their involuntary responses to telling lies. A lie is a lie and when you are strapped with all the sensors and asked questions, it does not matter if it is the police or someone your paying, it is still going to test if your telling lies or not and everyone is scared of being discovered telling lies.
Think of it another way, if she is guilty of killing her child, and she is taking a "safe" test, she would still be concerned aboyt those people knowing she lied and concerned that information may get leaked to the press.
So there is still significant stress for the guilty.
jhony5 said:
.....or it could backfire and provide a faulty response. Thusly stabbing to death any chance of the investigation leaning away from the innocent parties.
It is not going anywhere now, so a failed test could change nothing. The investigators already see them as the prime suspects and a failed test cannot be used in court against them, and as you already admitted, there is only a 2% chance of a false positive, no, any true caring parent would take the test to help their child, if not to clear themselves of suspician.
jhony5 said:
I would never take one. Ever. Even if my daughter was missing and I knew she had been taken. I would not take one. I do not believe that they are accurate enough to risk my ass and my daughters life that the test will be accurate. I am not the only one. I posted quotes from a non-bias group that scientifically measured their accuracy, and the appraisal was less than flattering.
But that is because your a criminal, you think like a criminal and you believe they may ask you questions that would incriminate you in other thengs. Your a drug user, you have cause to be scared of answering questions honestly to investigators.
It is easy for you to say now that you would turn your back on doing everything to help find your daughter because your not in that situation, but if you were in this situation and you knew more police strength could be directed tword looking for a stranger if you just took this 98% chance, I believe you would give your daughter that 98% chance.
I know I would give my children that 98% chance.
jhony5 said:
Lets keep this debate civil guys. There are few debates ongoing on this board that are civil. No more cracks about statements being "retarded" and people having their "heads up thier ass".
Agreed?
It was you being that way tword me, not the other way around, maybe you need to learn to be civil, point fingers at yourself before you try pointing them at anyone else.