UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Tim Invictus on March 12, 2012, 01:43:18 PM
-
I see that Teskowski has yet again brought that Jeremy Bamber passed a lie detactor test in prison and thought the subject deserved a thread here.
If you read Tesko's post today you will notice he states of Bamber:
He has passed conclusively the lie detector test. He has been in jail 7872 today of what can only be modestly described as ‘unlawful custody’.
Bamber has actually been in prison 9662 days today (of lawful imprisonment). This is proof positive that Tesko just recycles old rubbish to make his forum look busy! This is his post from 1778 days ago he is pretending is new but he forgot to change the day count! @)(++(*
As for lie detector tests: They are not admissable in court for a very good reason; they are not accurate. If they were then Ted Bundy would have failed his tests .... he passed too! Furthermore who monitored these tests carried out by Bamber's chosen operator; where is the proof he even passed one of these flawed tests?
It's not evidence!
18
-
I see that Teskowski has yet again brought that Jeremy Bamber passed a lie detactor test in prison and thought the subject deserved a thread here.
If you read Tesko's post today you will notice he states of Bamber:
He has passed conclusively the lie detector test. He has been in jail 7872 today of what can only be modestly described as ‘unlawful custody’.
Bamber has actually been in prison 9662 days today (of lawful imprisonment). This is proof positive that Tesko just recycles old rubbish to make his forum look busy! This is his post from 1778 days ago he is pretending is new but he forgot to change the day count! @)(++(*
As for lie detector tests: They are not admissable in court for a very good reason; they are not accurate. If they were then Ted Bundy would have failed his tests .... he passed too! Furthermore who monitored these tests carried out by Bamber's chosen operator; where is the proof he even passed one of these flawed tests?
It's not evidence!
Well spotted Tim, we were suspicious that he was doing that as he does seems to recycle his arguments rather a lot.
On the lie detector test, does anyone know if a test conducted some 20 years AFTER an event has a bearing on the validity of such a test. Our argument would be that Bamber has talked himself into believing that he didn't slay his family so now he believes it implicitly.
-
Mike Tesko, Roach and many other of Bamber's supporters put so much strore on the fact that Bamber supposedly passed a polygraph test (wrong described as a lie detector test). I thought I would do some research into the accuracy of such tests and have found that the most serious research on the subject rejects polvgraphs as accurate lie detectors:
Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies. These are not my words but rather a statement by the highly respected American Psychological Association.
Link: http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
I can't find any serious research that supports any accuracy for polygraph tests.
-
In 2007, Jeremy Bamber convincingly passed a lie detector test conducted by Terry Mullins, an expert in the field. Asked a series of twelve questions including “Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985?”, “Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family?” and “Did PC Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting?”, Bamber gave answers that indicated his innocence and affirmed the sighting, and no indices of deception were apparent in the results recorded by the polygraph.
But despite its notoriety as a ruthless instrument of detection, the polygraph test has almost no credibility within the scientific community. The ability of such a device to accurately assess the truthfulness of answers is in reality little better than chance, relegating the science of polygraphy to the level of astrology and tarot cards. What’s more, the technique is particularly ineffective when applied to individuals with [ censored word]ocial/psychopathic personality disorders, tendencies which are often displayed by people who kill deliberately. Gary Ridgway, the man convicted on the basis of DNA evidence (and later his own confession) as Utah’s Green River killer, passed a polygraph with flying colours at an early stage of the investigation. Conversely, Bill Wegerle, an innocent man, failed two separate tests after coming under suspicion of the murders.
Elated after receiving the results of his 2007 polygraph test, Bamber told the Daily Mirror “I didn’t do it, I couldn’t have done it, I wouldn’t have done it.”
But he could have done it, seemingly would have done it and very probably did do it. 8((()*/
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
Here, here! 8@??)(
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
Quite frankly I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about polygraph tests. They are bullshit, end of!
On a slightly different tack, well done to Marie27, whoever SHE is! I particularly enjoyed the farewell message to Roach.
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
Here, here! 8@??)(
Here, here 8@??)(
Only an idiot would keep twittering on about polygraph tests when the slightest bit of research shows they are next to meaningless ... take note Roach!
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
Exactly Mat, a junk science if there ever was one. The way I see it is that the Polygraph is used to scare suspects into confessing. You only need to look at the Adrian Prout case where his girlfriend Debbie Garlick pushed him into taking one and we all know what happened next. HE CONFESSED!
The Jeremy Kyle Show is just that, a show. It does not represent reality in respect of polygraph machines. The machine does not determine if someone is telling lies or not, that dubious responsibility is afforded to the muppet running the test. I wouldn't like to put my credibility on the line on the basis of some idiot out to scrounge a fast buck using this fake science. At the end of the day a polygraph cannot recognise sweaty palms, agitation, failed eye contact, facial blushes or a twitching eyebrow, all signs that a lie is being told.
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
I (unfortunately) know someone who was on Jeremy Kyle, and ironically, the lie detector got it wrong there as well. They're about as accurate as predicting someone's criminality from the shape of their face.
-
Lie detectors have no place in the courts system, Bamber can pay whoever he wishes to do whatever tests he wishes for him, but it isn't going to even be considered slight evidence by those with open eyes.
Lie detectors are best saved for Jeremy Kyle, not kiddie killers.
Quite frankly I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about polygraph tests. They are bullshit, end of!
On a slightly different tack, well done to Marie27, whoever SHE is! I particularly enjoyed the farewell message to Roach.
Me too........... 8((()*/
-
Threads have been created on this in the Blue forum.
It is easy to pass a lie detector test. Especially for someone like Jeremy.
The whole set up would have been by his lawyers.
All in all it was another cheap stunt for the media.
-
What are the special qualities in particular that you think he has to pass this test?
Because it seems he blurts out his confessions to his girlfriend - so I am confused now?
-
Well there are lots of internet articles about how easy it is to pass lie detectors.
A pychiatrist working for the defence said Bamber showed the classic signs of being a psychopath. In his case able to blank out his actions altogether.
Twenty nine years later and it will be even easier. Bamber probably has no guilt or remorse. So will be able to be calm during a test.
-
Lie detectors are a junk science at the moment and only reflect physiological changes in the subjects body. These changes can be caused by numerous stimuli so claiming that they can detect lies is a nonsense.
-
Bamber supporters should take note https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wife-killer-refuses-lie-detector-12723051
-
Lie detectors are utter quackery I agree. I wonder what the results of a 'truth drug' or hypnotic regression would be?
-
Lie detectors are utter quackery I agree. I wonder what the results of a 'truth drug' or hypnotic regression would be?
You have to have something to fear for them to have an effect. Having already been convicted, Bamber had nothing to lose - no stressor.
Not sure that truth serums would be any use either.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5902559/what-truths-does-truth-serum-actually-reveal
-
You have to have something to fear for them to have an effect. Having already been convicted, Bamber had nothing to lose - no stressor.
Not sure that truth serums would be any use either.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5902559/what-truths-does-truth-serum-actually-reveal
Lie detector or no lie detector, truth serum or no truth serum, Jeremy Bamber is guilty and his supporters only highlight this fact further! Especially those supporters who are quite clearly personality disorder themselves; Mike T.... to name one. *&^^& (by his own admittance I might add)
-
Lie detector or no lie detector, truth serum or no truth serum, Jeremy Bamber is guilty and his supporters only highlight this fact further! Especially those supporters who are quite clearly personality disorder themselves; Mike T.... to name one. *&^^& (by his own admittance I might add)
Mike's been posting to himself for years. The one poster who did debate with him was Scipio, who he banned.
The only other supporter who posts regulary is Lookout. She is a harmless, batty, old dear who only Caroline & Jane J engage with.
David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to focus on any guilters who post sourced evidence.
Where did Nigel go ? The last I saw he had a minor tiff with Caroline. Surely he's not done a TomG & Luminous Wanderer & cried off. He did say he 'would put his life' on Jeremy being innocent. Thought he would be more determined.
-
Mike's been posting to himself for years. The one poster who did debate with him was Scipio, who he banned.
The only other supporter who posts regulary is Lookout. She is a harmless, batty, old dear who only Caroline & Jane J engage with.
David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to focus on any guilters who post sourced evidence.
Where did Nigel go ? The last I saw he had a minor tiff with Caroline. Surely he's not done a TomG & Luminous Wanderer & cried off. He did say he 'would put his life' on Jeremy being innocent. Thought he would be more determined.
The online campaign to win Jeremy Bamber his freedom on some technicality has for some time been thoroughly discredited.
-
Mike's been posting to himself for years. The one poster who did debate with him was Scipio, who he banned.
The only other supporter who posts regulary is Lookout. She is a harmless, batty, old dear who only Caroline & Jane J engage with.
David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to focus on any guilters who post sourced evidence.
Where did Nigel go ? The last I saw he had a minor tiff with Caroline. Surely he's not done a TomG & Luminous Wanderer & cried off. He did say he 'would put his life' on Jeremy being innocent. Thought he would be more determined.
Everyone at some point has one of those! @)(++(*
-
Mike's been posting to himself for years. The one poster who did debate with him was Scipio, who he banned.
The only other supporter who posts regulary is Lookout. She is a harmless, batty, old dear who only Caroline & Jane J engage with.
David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to focus on any guilters who post sourced evidence.
Where did Nigel go ? The last I saw he had a minor tiff with Caroline. Surely he's not done a TomG & Luminous Wanderer & cried off. He did say he 'would put his life' on Jeremy being innocent. Thought he would be more determined.
Lookout is batty and old, but not harmless. She has consistently made spiteful, damaging posts about June and Sheila, for the last five years, when she hasn't got a clue about them, or their way of life, or who they were. She reflects her bitter, blinkered bigotry onto two wholly innocent women because she's deluded about Bamber, and full of self-loathing. And her ignorance is jaw-dropping. Plus, she's a racist and homophobe. She would be totally dismayed if she knew who has pmed me and given me details about her. I haven't used those details, although she thinks that I have. It isn't just me who finds her a horrible woman. She needs to look a little bit closer to home.
-
Yes Lookout can be very abusive & often gets her posts removed. However she ticks all the right boxes - elderly female & supporter, so is fiercely protected by the moderator who just says 'I have removed some posts', rather than singling her out.
She is harmless in the respect that what she posts will not influence anyone & she will never campaign away from the forum.
-
IF someone was guilty would they volunteer to take a lie detector test?
also i don't understand why posts are made putting down other posters on the other forum when they are not on this forum to defend themselves. I've joined the other forum as well as i want to learn what i can about this case but i dont see what putting other posters down achieves , everyone is entitled to their opinions and surely what happens on another forum is their business. ?
-
I think someone who has read up on the tests and knows how they work would be quite happy to take a test because whatever the result it can be dismissed as quackery. As for the other forum, well I've had a look and frankly most of the people on there are rambling incoherents. Best avoided if you want sensible discussion.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7031283/Founder-Jeremy-Kyle-lie-detector-test-firm-cleared-Litvinenkos-assassin.html
-
Wasn't Bamber just supposed to say 'yes' or 'no' to expected questions.
Don't see how this would cause him great stress & make him fail. Even if he was saying 'no' when it should be 'yes'. He was calm enough to commit the massacre.
He had spent years saying he was innocent & was confident enough to testify. So being asked the same straight forward questions by a nice man should not be difficult.
There was no pressure in the test. He requested it. A failed test would not have been made public.
-
Wasn't Bamber just supposed to say 'yes' or 'no' to expected questions.
Don't see how this would cause him great stress & make him fail. Even if he was saying 'no' when it should be 'yes'. He was calm enough to commit the massacre.
He had spent years saying he was innocent & was confident enough to testify. So being asked the same straight forward questions by a nice man should not be difficult.
There was no pressure in the test. He requested it. A failed test would not have been made public.
There is also the point that being already convicted, he had nothing to lose so the questoons would certianly be less stressful that if he thought he may later lose his freedom.
-
Bamber would already know exactly or roughly the questions he was going to be asked. He would also know exactly what one word answer he would give.
There was no judge or jury watching him & his answers would not be challenged.
After decades of saying he was innocent, don't see why the lie detector should go off scale when he says 'no'.
-
Lie detector tests have about as much credibility as drawing lots when it come to determining lies, it's risible that some police forces around the world still use them.
e.g Gary Ridgeway aka the green river killer passed a polygraph, effectively eliminating him from enquiries then went on to kill several more women, while the cops focused on some poor innocent who failed his
-
Lie detector tests have about as much credibility as drawing lots when it come to determining lies, it's risible that some police forces around the world still use them.
e.g Gary Ridgeway aka the green river killer passed a polygraph, effectively eliminating him from enquiries then went on to kill several more women, while the cops focused on some poor innocent who failed his
On the plus side the LDT seems to have put an end to the JK show:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48279613
-
On the plus side the LDT seems to have put an end to the JK show:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48279613
True! we owe a debt of gratitude to the good old polygraph for ridding us of that vile programme, and hopefully that odious snake Kyle too although I'm sure he will slither back on to our screens somehow. Revamped and slightly toned down probably.
-
From the OS -
Bamber took his test in HM Full Sutton in 2007. The detailed and thorough test, lasting over one hundred minutes, centred largely on three questions to which Jeremy Bamber gave the following responses in relation to the deaths of five members of his family at their remote home of White House Farm in 1985:
Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
Did you shoot five members of your family on the 7th of August 1985 with an Anschutz rifle? - No
Were you present inside the house when 5 members of your family were shot with an Anschutz rifle? –No.
--------
Standard questions for Bamber to say 'no' to.
The surprising thing was that it lasted over 100 minutes. Wonder what else he was asked.