Jeremy Bamber and the lie detector test.

[Joanne]

Since lie detection tests are not admissible in this country in a court, why do people keep mentioning it like it's going to help him?
I also feel lie detectors will only work if people would want to 'fess up or don't have enough confidence in their story to see it though if that makes sense. But since Jeremy Bamber has been telling the same old same old for nearly 30 years (and he believes what he's saying), it wouldn't surprise me if he did pass it with flying colours to be honest and it would prove nothing to me or change his situation.
I think if he was going to have a successful appeal by now, it would have happened since so may people claim to have represented him and appear to know every nook and cranny about this case, yet nobody can come up with anything to convince the CCRC beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't do it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Since lie detection tests are not admissible in this country in a court, why do people keep mentioning it like it's going to help him?
I also feel lie detectors will only work if people would want to 'fess up or don't have enough confidence in their story to see it though if that makes sense. But since Jeremy Bamber has been telling the same old same old for nearly 30 years (and he believes what he's saying), it wouldn't surprise me if he did pass it with flying colours to be honest and it would prove nothing to me or change his situation.
I think if he was going to have a successful appeal by now, it would have happened since so may people claim to have represented him and appear to know every nook and cranny about this case, yet nobody can come up with anything to convince the CCRC beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't do it.

I'm not sure what the criteria is in respect of overturning a verdict returned by a jury insofar it goes with the CCRC and CoA  8-)(--). I think it might be beyond 'reasonable doubt'?  As I see it the CCRC act as a sort of filter, but some filter as <3% of cases submitted to CCRC are referred to CoA.  The number of convictions then quashed by CoA is teeny.  I'll post the figs tomorrow time permitting. 

Yes I agree it's all very well saying JB has passed a lie detector test but since the English courts don't recognise this it's all pretty meaningless other than good forum fodder. 

Interestingly though I believe the probation service use LDT with sex offenders when considering parole and release   8-)(--)  I believe they are also used with benefit cheats.  Assuming this is correct it seems somewhat odd that they are viewed as credible in some areas but not others  8-)(--)

JB actively pursued the LDT and I believe had to jump through many hoops to undertake it.  I read somewhere that Simon Hall shyed away but I am unsure how accurate this info is as it was something posted on the 'other' forum.

[John]

The polygraph or lie detector is one of the biggest cons ever.  They don't work, have never worked and are unlikely to ever work for many years to come.  Lots of shrewd operators are making money out of them though at £500 plus expenses a pop. 

[scipio_usmc]

The CCRC has to evaluate whether evidence would be likely to sway the court of appeals to overturn a verdict.

That entails looking at the conviction and seeing if the supposed evidence disturbs any of the key pillars of the conviction.  If the evidence doesn't have a major bearing then even if true it makes no difference.

The evidence has to be strong enough that it would likely have changed how the jury voted for the Court of Appeals to overturn it.

Roughly 70% of referrals have been overturned so they have done a pretty good job of identifying which cases the Court of Appeals will reverse.

Let's just look at 1 issue raised by Bamber's lawyers- the supposed burn marks on Nevill's upper back. 

Bamber's lawyers assert these marks were made the rifle without the suppressor on.  They claim this proves the suppressor was not used during the shootings.

The expert testimony is challenged though.  Other experts dispute the marks could have been made by the rifle without the suppressor.  Unless you can find a majority of experts to establish a point you are going to be unlikely to convince a court to reverse a conviction.

Even if all experts agreed that the marks were made by the rifle sans suppressor that still doesn't prove the gun wasn't fired with the suppressor attached.  The jury heard that the suppressor was removed sometime during or after the murders.  It was also supposedly attached at an unknown time. The suppressor could have been removed after the shootings and then the rifle used to hit Nevill.  He could have been poked and the suppressor reattached after as well. The only way to know if a suppressor was attached or not objectively is if an entrance wound demonstrates such.  If an entrance wound has a mark from the front sight then it means the suppressor was not used at the particular time that shot was fired. Similarly if an entrance wound has an outline of the suppressor it had to have been attached. Other objective evidence is if back spatter is found inside. That is objective evidence it was attached when a particular shot was fired.

In this case evidence was presented at trial that the suppressor had back spatter from Sheila inside or there was a remote chance it was June and Nevill's blood mixed.  Both the defense and proseuction tested diffferent blood fromt he suppressor and both came to this same conclusion that it was almost certainly Sheila's blood type and only a remote possibility it was instead June and Nevill's. 

If the blood that had been tested by the defense and prosecution could be retested then there is a chance the conclusions could be undermined. But such blood could not be retested. It could not be tested for DNA type or any other test.  Short of testing these exact samples you can't refute the results. Had some of this blood been saved for further testing that is different, in that case there is a chance for new evidence to be revealed.

If they coudl prove the blood had been planted in the suppressor that would work too. Suppose they found a cop who said he sprayed Sheila's blood inside or saw someone else do it. That would warrant a new trial.  Just making the claim it could have been planted without providing any evidence to establish it though doesn't cut it.

At the end of the day you need evidence of sufficient quality that the jury could believe it and that it could impact the verdict rendered.

The facts of any given case determine what is needed to overturn a verdict, it really varies by the facts and legal elements of the crime(s). 



         

       

[Holly Goodhead]

The CCRC website shows that during its history it has referred approx. 3.14% of eligible cases to CoA (with 2.97% of eligible cases actually heard).  The CoA then quashed approx. 69% of convictions. 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-cases-review-commission

We have no idea how effective or not the CCRC is at referring cases.  It strikes me that its a bit of an uphill struggle for defendants without legal aid.

In any event in terms of JB's case it is interesting to note that his case (2002) actually fell in the 3.14% of eligible cases referred to CoA albeit it eventually fell in the 31% of cases heard by CoA and upheld    The CoA has an appalling track-record with long running MoJ's and JB's case is entirely consistent with this:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016

[John]

The CCRC was under financial pressure before the latest financial crisis so you can imagine what it is like now.  They appear wholly understaffed for the job they are supposed to do resulting in many deserving cases not being properly examined.  The SCCRC appears to be even worse if my own experience of them is anything to go by.  My own opinion is that both organisations are merely a token effort as far as justice in the UK is concerned.  A damming indictment on our so-called justice systems!

[baxterdavid]

well they use lie detectors when there deciding weather to release sex offenders back into the community if there of no value at all why are they using them.

[scipio_usmc]

well they use lie detectors when there deciding weather to release sex offenders back into the community if there of no value at all why are they using them.

They are not being used to determine whether to release them. They are being used during probation checks.  The fact they are being used is thought to be a deterrent from committing more crimes. Some supposedly fear comitting crimes because they are scared that they will crack under questioning.  Also some do crack. Apparently they are so convinced that they will be found out during the test they end up confessing. 

The funny part is that if the lie detector says they are lying nothing can happen to them as a result, they can't go back to jail for failing.  The resuls can't be used against them in court.  The confessions can be used though.  So they essentially are confessing for nothing.   

At the end of the day I guess you can call it mental games being played by the government. Those convinced in the power of lie detector tests end up cracking.  No doubt there are those who don't crack but the government figures it pays beause it prompts some to confess and also is beneficial since some are deterred.

 

[steve_trousers]

Hi,

I always think of Gary Ridgway, the green river killer, when this subject comes up.
He came under suspicion much earlier in the police investigation, took a polygraph and passed it. The police moved on to another, innocent man who failed a polygraph and Ridgway went on to murder dozens more women.

I read somewhere that psychopaths are supposedly more mentally adept at fooling the polygraph, and for certain people it has about as much use as astrology or a crystal ball in determining someones guilt.

[scipio_usmc]

Hi,

I always think of Gary Ridgway, the green river killer, when this subject comes up.
He came under suspicion much earlier in the police investigation, took a polygraph and passed it. The police moved on to another, innocent man who failed a polygraph and Ridgway went on to murder dozens more women.

I read somewhere that psychopaths are supposedly more mentally adept at fooling the polygraph, and for certain people it has about as much use as astrology or a crystal ball in determining someones guilt.

I like to look at it like hypnosis.  Some people are susceptible to it while others are not.  Since some are not it can have very dangerous consequences if too much stock is put in the results. The results can't be used to convict someone because of the unreliability. As you pointed out there are people who flunk simply because they are nervous (not unlike people whose blood pressure rises substantially while being examined by a doctor) while there are guilty people who pass. A trial verdict is much too serious to let ride on a crap shoot.

Similarly it is a gamble when investigators use it to clear someone and concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Fortunaely the example of the Green River killer has not been reapeted too often as far as we know. 

The UK is not using it for investigative purposes in the traditional sense though.  It is more like military psy ops.

They try to instill fear into the released criminals. They want the parolees to be scared of committing crimes out of fear that the lie detector will catch them lying because they know they will definitely be subject to lie detector tests during all parole interviews.  They also want the parolees to be scared to lie during said interviews and those who are so scared are much more forthcoming with information.

So maybe it does in a way inhibit crime through psy ops and also results in those who did commit crimes again to admit they did it so they can be punished.

Hard core criminals though are not scared of lie detector tests, are not dettered by the fact they have to take them and will probably pass the tests or realize even if they don't pass nothing will happen to them.  So it likely offers nothing at all as far as the worst offenders are concerned. They are the ones I would be worried about most of all. But is doesn't hurt deterring more minor crimes so I guess it is worthwhile if it actually works as they claim.

I would never hang my hat on the results, particulary in an investigative context yet there are countless examples of police in the US doing just that and it sometimes does backfire with diablicial criminals are erroneously cleared.  The odd thing is that there are still cops out there who have not learned their lesson and still swear by results anyway. But there are cops so desperate they turn to psychics though psychics never helped break any major cases.

Cops who are stumped seem to be as superstitious as sport stars. Maybe they even have lucky socks they wear to help the solve crimes who knows...

   

 

 

[John]

Some time back we offered an open challenge to these foremost polygraph operators in the UK to prove their claims.  Needless to say not one of them took us up on it.  Says it all really!   

[Holly Goodhead]

With regard to Gary Ridgeway and his lie detection test it appears he actually failed it after review by the FBI:

"He became a suspect in 1983 in the Green River killings. In 1984, Ridgway took and passed a polygraph test (quality control protocols later developed in the FBI after careful review determined that Ridgway actually failed his polygraph test), and on April 7, 1987, police took hair and saliva samples from Ridgway".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway

I understand the UK Government use the tests with sex offenders and benefit cheats which seems rather strange given that they're not recognised in the criminal courts.  Anyway as they're not recognised by the courts I don't really see the point in JB taking one.  It could be tea leaves or horroscopes.

[Caroline]

With regard to Gary Ridgeway and his lie detection test it appears he actually failed it after review by the FBI:

"He became a suspect in 1983 in the Green River killings. In 1984, Ridgway took and passed a polygraph test (quality control protocols later developed in the FBI after careful review determined that Ridgway actually failed his polygraph test), and on April 7, 1987, police took hair and saliva samples from Ridgway".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway

I understand the UK Government use the tests with sex offenders and benefit cheats which seems rather strange given that they're not recognised in the criminal courts.  Anyway as they're not recognised by the courts I don't really see the point in JB taking one.  It could be tea leaves or horroscopes.

He passed it but later confessed to the murders and gave detailed accounts of all the murders. Another suspect to the PT and failed it.

[Caroline]

The lie detector is basically a test for stress levels, it doesn't actually measure lies per se, simply the stress 'most' individuals would experience in such circumstances. Psychopaths don't need to suppress these memories because they don't feel any guilt or remorse and aren't prone to stress. If Jeremy had suppressed the memory of the killing, he would also needed to have suppressed the planning, discussing it with Julie and he would have had to convince himself that the phone call from his father was real and wouldn't need to change his story.

Gary Ridgway did indeed pass a lie detector test in 1987 while another suspect failed it, however, he later pleaded guilty to over 40 murders in 2003 to avoid the death penalty,  supplying detectives with detailed accounts for each of the murders/ He admitted to killing prostitutes to avoid paying them and he liked to keep track of where he dumped the bodies.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/05/green.river.killings/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22467640


The Bamber killing were planned and staged and I am sure Jeremy remembers exactly what he did.

[Holly Goodhead]

He passed it but later confessed to the murders and gave detailed accounts of all the murders. Another suspect to the PT and failed it.

Yes but apparently the FBI reviewed the test he passed and found he had in fact failed! 

From what I've read they're unreliable.