Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test  (Read 2994 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 01:47:32 AM by John »

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2013, 01:47:17 AM »
Nice find Joanne, looks like Sandra Lean has put both feet in it yet again.  Here is the actual video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FiVI69P_Lk


The whole thing looks so unnatural and surreal.





http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-takes-lie-detector-test-1533171

« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 02:07:46 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2013, 02:24:23 AM »
In the Part III video Mullins asks...

"Prior to Jodi going missing do you remember deliberately lying to a police officer?"   

Mitchell answers...  "NO"


What the hell sort of a silly question was that?  Mitchell had no contact with the police prior to Jodi going missing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CRbakHNSg

Fast forward to  3.10
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 02:27:33 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2013, 02:33:50 AM »
He then goes on to deny going out of his way to deliberately hurt someone when we know he threatened at least two other girls.  What sort of a mickey mouse test does Mullins conduct anyway?   @)(++(*
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2013, 04:57:58 AM »
To be fair, Nug Nug posted something about it over there >>>>>>

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2013, 12:37:08 PM »
To be fair, Nug Nug posted something about it over there >>>>>>

Is it only me or did he look in pain just about every time he answered?   >@@(*&)
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2013, 12:45:05 PM »
I think thats just how he looks normally.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2013, 12:46:57 PM »
http://www.roughjusticetv.co.uk/rjlukefilm.htm
In that ^^^ a well known figure (well not really) looks in pain.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2013, 11:23:34 PM »
Polygraph technology is simply a false science.  There are so many variables that the same results are barely ever achieved twice in a row.

I have challenged any polygraph expert to prove that the equipment actually works but as predicted not one of them has taken me up on it.  Says it all really!

The so-called results which are being claimed in relation to using the polygraph with sex offenders is based on the fear of discovery.  If these individuals believe that they will be found out they are less likely to lie in the first place.  Reverse science by any other name.  @)(++(* 
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 11:25:57 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline puglove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
  • Total likes: 64
  • Over 33 THOUSAND posts of lazy, ignorant bigotry.
Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2013, 01:00:02 PM »
Polygraph technology is simply a false science.  There are so many variables that the same results are barely ever achieved twice in a row.

I have challenged any polygraph expert to prove that the equipment actually works but as predicted not one of them has taken me up on it.  Says it all really!

The so-called results which are being claimed in relation to using the polygraph with sex offenders is based on the fear of discovery.  If these individuals believe that they will be found out they are less likely to lie in the first place.  Reverse science by any other name.  @)(++(*

It's no wonder that just about the only people who take lie detectors seriously are dentally-challenged Jeremy Kyle fodder.
Every gusset a memory.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Lie Detector Test
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2013, 01:12:36 PM »
i just can't see how 'realistically' they can work unless people actually think they do and simply tell the truth because they think they work but then it doesn't cover certain people who 'can tell a lie and prove it'.

From wiki-:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

Polygraphy has little evidence to support its use. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness. The utility among sex offenders is also poor with insufficient evidence to support accuracy or improved outcomes in this population.

Notable cases
Polygraphy has also been faulted for failing to trap known spies such as double-agent Aldrich Ames, who passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union. Other spies who passed the polygraph include Karl Koecher, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo. However, CIA spy Harold James Nicholson failed his polygraph examinations, which aroused suspicions that led to his eventual arrest. Polygraph examination and background checks failed to detect Nada Nadim Prouty, who was not a spy but was convicted for improperly obtaining US citizenship and using it to obtain a restricted position at the FBI.
The polygraph also failed to catch Gary Ridgway, the "Green River Killer". Another suspect named Melvin Foster allegedly failed a given lie detector test whereas Ridgeway passed. Ridgway passed a polygraph in 1984 and confessed almost 20 years later when confronted with DNA evidence.

Conversely, innocent people have been known to fail polygraph tests. In Wichita, Kansas in 1986, after failing two polygraph tests (one police administered, the other given by an expert that he had hired), Bill Wegerle had to live under a cloud of suspicion of murdering his wife Vicki Wegerle, even though he was neither arrested nor convicted of her death. In March 2004, a letter was sent to The Wichita Eagle reporter Hurst Laviana that contained Vicki's drivers license and what first appeared to be crime scene photographs of her body. The photos had actually been taken by her true murderer, BTK, the serial killer that had plagued the people of Wichita since 1974 and had recently resurfaced in February 2004 after an apparent 25 year period of dormancy (he had actually killed three women between 1985 and 1991, including Wegerle). That effectively cleared Bill Wegerle of the murder of his wife. In 2005 conclusive DNA evidence, including DNA retrieved from under the fingernails of Vicki Wegerle, demonstrated that the BTK Killer was Dennis Rader.
Prolonged polygraph examinations are sometimes used as a tool by which confessions are extracted from a defendant, as in the case of Richard Miller, who was persuaded to confess largely by polygraph results combined with appeals from a religious leader.
In the high-profile disappearance of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam of San Diego in 2002, neighbor David Westerfield became the prime suspect when he failed his polygraph with a greater than 99% probability he was lying. But this claim has been challenged because the examiner kept the space heater on, making Westerfield uncomfortably hot; he constantly adjusted his machine, he said because the readings were too low; and he made a number of subtle changes to the questions he said he was going to ask, even though he said he wouldn’t. The examiner thought Westerfield’s alibi, a meandering weekend trip, was "as crazy as it gets"; he interviewed him for 3 hours, and at the end of the test, accused him of being involved in Danielle’s disappearance. Westerfield attributed his failing the test to his compassion for Danielle's family.In subsequent letters he said that, a couple of days later, they discovered that his test contained false results and they asked him to retake the test, but his attorney, who said it probably meant that the first test wasn’t set up right, wouldn’t allow it.

How to cheat on a polygraph test! I'd imagine lost of this is 'common sense'-if you're up for murder, the questions are going to be relating to it!
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)