shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index shirleymckie.myfastforum.org
To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Lie Detectors: The system is wearing two faces
Page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Karen



Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211



PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Lie Detectors: The system is wearing two faces  Reply with quote

The government's case for lie detectors has a glaring inconsistency


The news that the government intends to carry out compulsory polygraph (lie detector) tests on sex offenders leaving prison carries more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it. If the offenders fail the test and the machine indicates they are lying (for example when asked questions relating to their lifestyle and sexual behaviour) they will be returned to prison.

Not much wrong with that, some may say; sex offenders wreak havoc in the lives of their victims and the public are entitled to be protected from them. And if lie detectors can assist in the safeguarding process, why not use them?

Because the system is wearing two faces; on the one, it will imprison those "found out" by the polygraph; on the other, it refuses to accept lie detector evidence from those claiming to be wrongfully convicted, who have passed polygraph tests with flying colours.

I am in regular correspondence with two men who claim to be victims of miscarriages of justice. Both agreed to take part in polygraph tests at their own expense, and only after protracted wrangles with the Ministry of Justice. The MoJ does not welcome such applications from serving prisoners, despite their apparent wholehearted backing of the plans to force released offenders to take the same tests. Both men passed the tests.

Polygraph testing divides opinion sharply across the criminal justice board. Advocates of the system claim 90-95% success rates, while businesses who provide polygraph services go higher, claiming 95-100%. Polygraph testimony is admitted in court in only 19 states in the USA, subject to the discretion of the trial judge; but it is widely used by prosecutors, defence attorneys and law enforcement agencies across the country. Most European countries do not regard polygraph tests as reliable evidence. Usually, voluntary tests are undertaken by defendants, in an effort to show innocence.

In 2008, Gordon Brown proposed their use by the Benefits Agency to flush out fraudulent claims, but the plan was quietly dropped after pilot tests proved too costly. Pilots for the current testing plans were carried out on sex offenders by East and West Midlands probation staff from 2009 to 2011. Staff found offenders tested made twice as many admissions of unacceptable behaviour than offenders made using conventional questioning and monitoring.

I have no strong views on the ability of polygraph tests to prove guilt, or innocence. Though I am impressed by people, like my two correspondents in prison, who volunteer for testing. In both cases, I would be convinced of their innocence, tests or no tests; the evidence I have seen in their favour leaves no room for doubt. One of them, Jeremy Bamber is, in my view, a victim of one of the gravest injustices of our time. The report of his lie detector test states unequivocally that there was "no deception indicated" in his replies to questions on the murders of five members of his family.

It must be galling for Bamber to see the system, which does not recognise this test and continues to incarcerate him, now proposing to lock people up on the strength of precisely the same test methods.

A whiff of hypocrisy? Full-on stench more like.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment...-detectors-inconsistency-evidence
_________________
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? NOW!

http://justicefornatfraser.webs.com/
Justice for Nat Fraser, Arlene and their families

http://www.justiceforwilliamgage.webs.com/
Justice for William Gage!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Karen



Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211



PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The system likes to pick and choose when it uses tools like this


Benefit cheats to face lie detector tests

Council leaders have introduced lie detector tests in a bid to catch benefit fraudsters who trick them out of thousands of pounds every year.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...s-to-face-lie-detector-tests.html
_________________
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? NOW!

http://justicefornatfraser.webs.com/
Justice for Nat Fraser, Arlene and their families

http://www.justiceforwilliamgage.webs.com/
Justice for William Gage!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lovejoy



Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 23


Location: LEEDS

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You only have to watch real life murder investigations in the USA (Sky crime channels) I've lost count of the times I've heard this said by a police officer,

Either:

1. He (the suspect) failed the polygraph and we knew right there we had the right man.

Or:

He passed the polygraph with flying colours BUT that don't mean anything some people can beat the box.

Talk about heads we win and tails you lose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Karen



Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211



PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FOR 17 years Joe Steele has denied killing six people in the notorious Ice Cream Wars murders.

Yesterday, the Sunday Mail put him to the test - and found Steele is telling the truth.

We commissioned Britain's leading lie detector expert Bruce Burgess to put him through an exhaustive polygraph test just days before his latest appeal is to be heard.

No questions were out of bounds - and neither Steele nor the Sunday Mail had any input in them - they were set by Mr Burgess.

Steele did not hesitate over any question.

We asked: Did he murder the Doyle family?

Mr Burgess concluded: "Joe Steele told the truth when he answered my questions. The results show there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice in this case.

"I would be happy to go to court and tell them of my findings. I believe that truth should come out, not just for Joe Steele but also for the Doyle family."

This is the first time a lie detector test has ever taken place in Scotland and the results were conclusive - they showed Steele answered all of the questions truthfully.

He was asked: Did you murder the Doyle family? Answer: No.

Did you pour petrol through their door? Answer: No.

Did you start the fire that killed the Doyle family? Answer: No.

Have you ever been in the close where the Doyle family lived? Answer: No.

Were you present when the fire started. Answer? No.

Do you know for sure who started the fire. Answer? No.

Did you talk about the Doyle fire in any pub? Answer: No.

Did you tell police: "I thought you'd have been here before now."? Answer: No.

Did you tell police : "I'm no' the one that lit the match."? Answer: No.

Mr Burgess, who has worked extensively on sex crimes and paedophile cases, said: "Joe Steele answered each question truthfully.

"The equipment I use is 99 per cent accurate. There is no doubt in my results. I would be happy to show them in any court in the land."

Steele, 40, who escaped from jail three times and even superglued himself to the gates of Buckingham Palace to protest his innocence, said: "If anyone ever doubted that I was innocent, I hope this proves it once and for all.

"I had no worries about taking this test. I know I'm innocent. I know I never killed the Doyle family. I know I've spent 17 years wasting away behind bars for something I didn't do.

"I don't know if the Crown Office will ever have the guts to clear me once and for all but I think this proves my innocence to the people who matter.

"I can't stop thinking about the years I've been kept apart from my family, my wife Dolly and my two boys.

"And I can't stop thinking about the Doyles. I did this for them too. I want them to see justice at last."

In 1984, six members of the Doyle family died after fire ripped through their flat in Glasgow's Ruchazie.

Andrew Doyle, 18, brothers James, 23, and Anthony, 14, father James, 53, sister Christine Halleron, 22, and her 18- month-old, Mark, all perished.

Another brother, Daniel, was taken to hospital, critically injured, but survived.

The Doyles were victims of a turf war over lucrative ice cream van runs through Glasgow's housing schemes. The vans, often used as a front for drug dealing, could net thousands of pounds a week.

Steele and TC Campbell, 52, were convicted of the killings, but have always maintained their innocence.

This Wednesday, their latest appeal will be heard in court.

But lawyers for the Ice Cream Two fear appeal judges may never hear crucial new evidence that could overturn the murder convictions. The pair have always protested their innocence of the 1984 mass murder.

Their hopes of finally being cleared were raised after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission raised concerns about police evidence against them. But the pair's lawyers fear the Crown will try to argue the crucial new evidence cannot be heard.

Steele and Campbell have always insisted that police fabricated statements used against them in court.

And the review commission found that four senior police officers colluded to make up the verbal "evidence".

The officers claimed Campbell told them: "I only wanted the van windaes shot. The fire at the Fat Boy's was only meant to be a frightener that went too far."

They alleged that Steele opened his door to them and said: "I thought you'd have been here before now."

Later they claimed he said: "I'm no' the one that lit the match." Linguistics experts brought in by the commission to test that evidence found it would have taken odds of billions to one to have four officers repeat those verbal statements, word for word.

In experiments involving more than 200 people, the very best test subject could only remember six words in total, and they weren't even in the correct order.

It is this evidence the Crown is trying to suppress, along with statements from witnesses who say they were coerced by police officers to give statements against Steele and Campbell.

Convicted crook Billy Love gave evidence in court against Campbell and Steele in the original trial, claiming he'd heard them plotting the fire.

After he'd given the "false" statement to police he'd been released on bail for two attempted armed robberies.

But after Steele and Campbell were convicted, Love claimed he'd been "blackmailed" by police in return for covering up the attempted murder shooting of Andrew `Fat Boy' Doyle.

Billy Love admitted he'd framed Campbell and Steele, and later told of his regret saying: "I've had to look at myself every day in the mirror because of that."

His sister, Aggie Love, wanted to give evidence that proved Billy was persuaded to frame Steele and TC, and that she witnessed her brother shooting at the Doyle's ice cream van.

But she's never been allowed to give that evidence to the Appeal Court. And two further trial witnesses claim they'd lied under police pressure, Joe Granger and his girlfriend Lynn Chalmers.

Granger said he was beaten until he signed a statement claiming he was lookout man on the night of the murders, implicating Steele and Campbell. When he changed his story in court, he was charged with perjury and jailed.

Two of the leading police officers in the case are now dead, Detective Chief Superintendent Charles Craig, the then head of CID, died in 1991.

Craig was also the officer who arrested Raymond Gilmour - jailed for the 1981 murder of schoolgirl Pamela Hastie, then released subject to appeal last year after SCCRC intervention. The other senior officer on the Doyle case, Detective Superintendent Norrie Walker, was found in his fume- filled car four years after the trial, a hose pipe attached to the exhaust.

Human Rights expert John Scott said: "It's ludicrous that after all these years, there are any moves to suppress evidence or expert testimony."

Top criminal lawyer John Carroll, who has represented Steele and Campbell since 1985, said: "I made a promise to fight for Joe Steele and Tommy Campbell until they get a fair trial, and that includes a fair hearing of all pertinent information and evidence.

"I intend to keep that promise."

Experts say tests vital for justice

LIE detector tests are not allowed as evidence in British courts.

But leading experts believe they could play a key role in the justice system.

Professor Don Grubin's pioneering work with sex offenders at Newcastle University has prompted calls from the Home Office to carry out trials.

Professor Grubin said: "I'm a great supporter of the polygraph. It's a wonderful tool.

"But there would need to be standard- isation of training and constant reviews of test results before a role in court could be considered."

The lie detector, or polygraph, was first invented in America in the early 1920s by psychologist William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman.

It works by measuring responses through heartbeat, breathing, blood pressure and sweat on skin. The theory is that lies provoke stress responses which can be monitored on a graph.

Controls are used to measure responses to lies before tests get underway. Accuracy depends on the tester's skills and the way questions are asked.

Our expert, Bruce Burgess, was trained by the American Polygraph Association alongside some of America's top police officers.

He carries out highly confidential work for some of the country's top financial institutions as well as with sex offenders.

Burgess, 58, said: "In the hands of a skilled examiner, the polygraph is highly accurate."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/INN...+for+the+six+%60Ice...-a097684402
_________________
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? NOW!

http://justicefornatfraser.webs.com/
Justice for Nat Fraser, Arlene and their families

http://www.justiceforwilliamgage.webs.com/
Justice for William Gage!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Karen



Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211



PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lovejoy wrote:
You only have to watch real life murder investigations in the USA (Sky crime channels) I've lost count of the times I've heard this said by a police officer,

Either:

1. He (the suspect) failed the polygraph and we knew right there we had the right man.

Or:

He passed the polygraph with flying colours BUT that don't mean anything some people can beat the box.

Talk about heads we win and tails you lose.


That appears to be the way it is Lovejoy
_________________
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? NOW!

http://justicefornatfraser.webs.com/
Justice for Nat Fraser, Arlene and their families

http://www.justiceforwilliamgage.webs.com/
Justice for William Gage!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Karen



Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211



PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mass killer Bamber 'passes lie detector'

Mass killer Jeremy Bamber's legal team claims he has 'conclusively' passed a lie detector test and proved his innocence.
A lawyer for the 45-year-old, who was jailed for life for the murder of five members of his family, said he completed the test at Full Sutton prison, near York, yesterday.
Giovanni di Stefano said the convicted murderer was asked a series of questions, including whether he carried out the killings.
Mr di Stefano said the results confirmed that Bamber was 'telling the truth' and he is now calling for him to be released.
He said: "He has passed conclusively the lie detector test. I will now be asking the Secretary of State to refer the case to the Parole Board with a view to them releasing him."
He added he would also make a further application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for an appeal. He lost appeals in 1987 and 2002 following his conviction in 1986.
Bamber has always denied shooting dead his adoptive parents Neville and June, sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's home, in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in 1985.
A Prison Service spokeswoman would not comment on the lie detector claims.
On his website, Bamber announced: "Jeremy passed a polygraph test in prison today."
On this site Bamber listed 12 questions he had been asked during the lie detector test. He said they were:
1. Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985? -No.
2. Did you shoot five members of your family with a Anschutz rifle? - No.
3. Were you present inside the house when they were shot with a Anschutz rifle - No.
4. Did you shoot your father Neville? - No.
5. Did you shoot your mother June? - No.
6. Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? - No.
7. Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? - No.
8. Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family? - No.
9. Did you climb out of a window of your parent's (sic) home after shooting them? - No.
10. Did you shoot your family in your father's home? - No.
11. Did Pc Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting? - Yes.
12. Did you pay a professional hitman to shoot your family? - No.

The test was carried out by Terry Mullins, one of Britain's leading lie detector experts. Testing takes about two hours and during that time the subject's physiological conditions are monitored such as breathing, blood pressure and pulse rate.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...s-lie-detector.html#ixzz2IKfDag7Q
_________________
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? NOW!

http://justicefornatfraser.webs.com/
Justice for Nat Fraser, Arlene and their families

http://www.justiceforwilliamgage.webs.com/
Justice for William Gage!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nugnug



Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 1341


Location: london

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well if they think there unreliable they shouldent use them if they are going to use them they must abide by the results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

they are more reliable that the many expert witnesses who give flawed evidence in our courts every week of the year.

David
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lovejoy



Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 23


Location: LEEDS

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The guy in the Bamber case said this:

Mr di Stefano said the results confirmed that Bamber was 'telling the truth' and he is now calling for him to be released.

He said: "He has passed conclusively the lie detector test. I will now be asking the Secretary of State to refer the case to the Parole Board with a view to them releasing him."


He can't seriously be suggesting that after 25 years a lie detector test at this stage PROVES anything.

After telling himself day in day out for that length of time Bamber has probably convinced himself he didn't do it.

Bamber still has to explain Julie Mugfords evidence that he told her he was going to kill them, and how the silencer with Sheila's blood inside the barrel got back in the gun cabinet, plus if memory serves me correctly didn't the phone records show that the phone call from his dad saying that Sheila had gone berserk was never made?

If the lie detector man thinks this constitutes grounds for a successful appeal he is the worlds biggest dreamer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nugnug



Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 1341


Location: london

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well if they wernt reliable then anyone who has been refused parole on the strength of one would have good grounds to sue.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1 All times are GMT
Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.